Re: A Liberal's View of the Right to Bear Arms

[Jeff Pawlowski <blackeagleblackeagle@xxxxxxxxx>]

> What utter twaddle Jeff.
> In 1812 the US gov't decided to expand their
> territory by grabbing up the
> canadian colonies figuring the british were too busy
> fighting Nappy to be
> able to stop this.  It was naked aggression on the
> part of the expansionist
> US in hopes of grabbing the cookies without burning
> their fingers.  You
> yanks are damned lucky the british didn't ship the
> Duke of Wellington over
> with his army.

That must the the British version.  Get your history
straight before spreading bullsh*t.  The war was
started because England was still trying to treat the
United States like their colonies.  Impressment of
American soldiers, blockades, an attack on the USS
Chesapeake, etc.  Yes, we did try to seize Canada. 
When one declares war, you don't sit on your hands. 
Given how some Canadians feel, some of them wished the
US won, but we can go with "What-Ifs" all week long.

> As for the 2nd amendment isn't that the one that
> guarantees the rights of
> the states to arm the national guard?  I don't
> remember it saying anything
> about arming the populace to the teeth.

If the 2nd Amendment is so scary to everyone, it is a
wonder why we receive so many immigrants, including
many Europeans, who seem to think these gun laws are
ridiculous.  It is obviously not deterring people.

As for the 2nd Amendment's purpose, Eric Benson said
it perfectly, that the US Supreme Court has never
addressed its interpretation.  What the h*ll do you
think by trying to interpret it for us?  Sounds like
the same historical arrogance to me.


=====
Jeff Pawlowski
Millennium's End: Officially Unofficial
http://www.millenniumsend.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/