From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 07:57:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug15.220349.23619@news.Hawaii.Edu> gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) writes:
>In article <_66m+3#.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>|> The Liberals are out to remove the weapons best suited for exercising
>|> the "ultimate recall power" from the people
>|> 
>|> They are trying to eliminate the 2nd Amendment to the Consititution
>|> thereby getting the inconvenient constitutional question out of the
>|> picture -forever
>|> 
>
>It's hardly an inconvenient constitutional question!  Go read your
>Constitution.  Look at the second amendment (ALL of it). Then ask
>yourself if it says, or even implies, anything about an individual's
>right to bear arms.
>

Well I have read it and I disagree with your conclusion. The only case
I am aware of involving the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment was the
Miller case of 1939. Miller was convicted of violating the National 
Firearms act by possessing an unregistered sawed off shotgun. He asserted
that his right to possess the weapon was guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
The court found that the 2nd amendment only guaranteed the right to posess
weapons useful for a militia and that a sawed off shotgun simply didn't 
pass the test. 

I read this as saying that machineguns, assault rifles, grenades, rocket
launchers, mortars, mines etc are the only weapons we have a constitutional
right to posess. The rhetoric from Clinton about "weapons which have no l
legitimate hunting purpose" simply is irrelevant. In effect what is being
perpetrated on the US as a whole is an attempt at re-defining the issue
to be one of hunting and sporting rights versus not. This of course is not
what the second amendment is about. It is about the people having a check
and balance on the government: in other words the ultimate recall power.

A recent poster asked the question of whether assault rifles would really
be all that useful in an insurrection. I would like to address that issue
now as well. To answer the question I suggest looking at the protracted 
struggle the Mujahedin in Afghanistan have had with their Soviet puppet 
government. They have had initially only very simple weapons, but
by carefully planned ambushes have managed to seize mor formidable weapons
to carry on their civil war. They have of course had help from abroad including
the US, but the backbone of the resistance has been the simple foot soldier
with simple weapons.

>The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the second amendment
>gives the States the right to maintain their own militia.  Period.  Why

Please cite references. If this is true I'd like to know the particulars 
and study the decisions  myself. Often times people get mis-information
and construe the second hand information inappropriately. I suspect you
are suffering from this malady.


-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: disarm the
public, create a national police force, and enlist the aid of  
the media propaganda machine to make all believe that the country
must take drastic measures to correct the so called sins of the
prior regime. Those that follow will be as culpable as the 
brownshirts and Hitler Youth.

Very Dangerous Times Indeed!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2391 alt.politics.perot:1316 talk.politics.guns:19744