No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.

pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

The word is "infringed", not encroached. And the concept of "shall not be
infringed" directly relates to the right to keep and bear arms in the
context of the preceding phrase in that sentence -- "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." The right to
keep and bear arms is not a separated from the concept of a well regulated
militia -- it isn't a separate constitutitonal right. It goes hand in hand
with the concept of a well regulated militia. I agree with the Second
Amendment -- if you are in a well regulated militia, the Constitution gives
you the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

Each state has the right to have a well regulated militia for securty of
staying a free state. In turn they have the duty along with the citizens of
such state to defend themselves from the federal government from coming in
and taking away the arms of the people of that state.
It is plain as day that the militia AND the PEOPLE of that state has the
right to keep and bear arms. Very simple, I have the right to keep and bear
arms.

"Marty S." wrote in message
...
The word is "infringed", not encroached. And the concept of "shall not be
infringed" directly relates to the right to keep and bear arms in the
context of the preceding phrase in that sentence -- "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." The right
to
keep and bear arms is not a separated from the concept of a well regulated
militia -- it isn't a separate constitutitonal right. It goes hand in
hand
with the concept of a well regulated militia. I agree with the Second
Amendment -- if you are in a well regulated militia, the Constitution
gives
you the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

It doesn't say that. You, of course, have the right to make whatever
interpretation of the words that you care to. And, I would be amongst the
first people to line up to defend your right to say what you want. But the
words don't say anything like what you think they do.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Steve Erwin" wrote in message
...
Each state has the right to have a well regulated militia for securty of
staying a free state. In turn they have the duty along with the citizens
of
such state to defend themselves from the federal government from coming in
and taking away the arms of the people of that state.
It is plain as day that the militia AND the PEOPLE of that state has the
right to keep and bear arms. Very simple, I have the right to keep and
bear
arms.

"Marty S." wrote in message
...
The word is "infringed", not encroached. And the concept of "shall not
be
infringed" directly relates to the right to keep and bear arms in the
context of the preceding phrase in that sentence -- "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." The right
to
keep and bear arms is not a separated from the concept of a well
regulated
militia -- it isn't a separate constitutitonal right. It goes hand in
hand
with the concept of a well regulated militia. I agree with the Second
Amendment -- if you are in a well regulated militia, the Constitution
gives
you the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order
to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such
as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but
it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to
have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my
beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check
once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it
more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to
be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

The militia in the Founding Fathers time referred to all able bodied men up
to age 45 or so.
Bill


"Marty S." wrote in message
...
The word is "infringed", not encroached. And the concept of "shall not be
infringed" directly relates to the right to keep and bear arms in the
context of the preceding phrase in that sentence -- "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." The right
to
keep and bear arms is not a separated from the concept of a well regulated
militia -- it isn't a separate constitutitonal right. It goes hand in
hand
with the concept of a well regulated militia. I agree with the Second
Amendment -- if you are in a well regulated militia, the Constitution
gives
you the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner