S#@>Re: Time and the Costitution

S#@>>   At the time the constitution was written, there WAS NO STANDING ARMY, a
S#@>> each man was expected to help defend the nation.  THAT is the meaning of
S#@>> term "militia."

S#@>     Not according to those that are most fluent in the language of the day
S#@>and also constitutional law.

S#@>     Militia has ALWAYS meant those people NOT in the army.  That's all of
S#@>us, NOW as well as then.

Because there was no STANDING ARMY, the citizens were expected to form
militias for the defense of th4e nation.  those citizens were expected
to have their own weapons do defend the "free state."

S#@>     It also says that it is necessary for a free state, meaning they
S#@>recognized then that a government couldn't victimize an armed citizenry.

THIS stupid argument is constantly being used by you "armed to the teeth
guys" and it is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of gun control ALREADY IN EFFECT!  IF
the government WERE to become oppressive, and some citizens felt the
need to defend themselves from it, what you really neam is to defend
yourself against the Armed Forces of the United States.  You can NOT
legally own a fully functional TANK, Fighter Aircraft, MORTAR or
Artillery piece.  Let alone a machine gun or a case of grenades.  Now
how in the WORLD do you expect to wage war against the government, when
the Gov't has ALREADY limited the types of weapons you can own?  <DUH!>
---
 � SLMR 2.0 � Computers are very sophisticated idiots. � Dr. Who

                                   VQWK 6.20I