XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Leif"  wrote in message   
   news:1190663984.134782.314780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 24, 1:15 am, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:1190610475.683296.272440@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On Sep 23, 7:55 am, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >> >  wrote:   
   >> >> Leif  wrote   
   >> >> innews:1190409691.547147.53540@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:   
   >>   
   >> >> > On Sep 21, 10:42 am, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >> >> >  wrote:   
   >> >> >> Leif  wrote   
   >> >> >> innews:1190340183.822207.25630@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > On Sep 20, 1:35 am, "Scout"   
   >> >> >> >  wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >>news:1190263499.204359.138190@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > On Sep 19, 2:33 pm, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >> >> >> >> >  wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> >> Leif  wrote   
   >> >> >> >> >> innews:1190083380.898090.109280@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> > On Sep 17, 8:21 am, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >> >> >> >> >> >  wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> Leif  wrote   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> innews:1190003663.704286.7890@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > Each application of the term "the people" takes some of   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > its meaning from its context.  In the Second Amendment,   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > the context is the well regulated militia.  "The people"   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > in that amendment  were made up of all those nonexempt   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > men   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > who, under state militia law,  were considered capable   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > of   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > bearing arms (capable of military service) as a well   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> > regulated militia.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> IOW, you feel that anyone over the age of 45 has to turn   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> in   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> their guns since they have no right to have them?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> > Leif speaking:  Of course I don't feel that "anyone over   
   >> >> >> >> >> > the   
   >> >> >> >> >> > age of 45 should have to turn in their guns," if they have   
   >> >> >> >> >> > their guns in compliance with all laws.  But the Second   
   >> >> >> >> >> > Amendment is simply not involved, unless possession of the   
   >> >> >> >> >> > guns is in some way related to militia service.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> Second Amendment and RKBA are two separate issues.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > Leif speaking:  I agree.  The Second Amendment is about the   
   >> >> >> >> > right of the people as a militia   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Sorry, I seem to have missed that "as a miliita" modifier. Where   
   >> >> >> >> exactly in the 2nd can I find it and by what process of grammar   
   >> >> >> >> does it become a modifier of "the people"?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> I mean you keep asserting this modifier is attached to the   
   >> >> >> >> people,   
   >> >> >> >> but somehow you never seem able to point out where it is in the   
   >> >> >> >> sentence or by what process under the Standard Rules of English   
   >> >> >> >> it   
   >> >> >> >> modifies the noun "people".   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > to keep and bear arms for the security of a   
   >> >> >> >> > free state. An individual right to keep and bear arms is about   
   >> >> >> >> > the personal use of guns.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Yep, but again I see nothing that declares the right to keep and   
   >> >> >> >> bear arms shall only be protected for one purpose. Again can you   
   >> >> >> >> show me where in the 2nd it states that the right to keep and   
   >> >> >> >> bear   
   >> >> >> >> arms shall not be infringed only for the purpose of providing   
   >> >> >> >> security for a free state, and by what process "security of a   
   >> >> >> >> free   
   >> >> >> >> state" becomes attached to "shall not be infringed"?- Hide   
   >> >> >> >> quoted   
   >> >> >> >> text -   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> - Show quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > Leif speaking:  The entire first half of the Second Amendment   
   >> >> >> > tells   
   >> >> >> > us that the amendment is about the importance of a well regulated   
   >> >> >> > militia in the security of a free state.  If the amendment had   
   >> >> >> > been   
   >> >> >> > about individual  gun use, Madison would have said so.  Here's a   
   >> >> >> > rule from Judge Story that covers the importance of preambles:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > "It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the   
   >> >> >> > administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a   
   >> >> >> > key   
   >> >> >> > to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to   
   >> >> >> > be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the   
   >> >> >> > provisions of the statute."  (Paragraph 459, Commentaries on the   
   >> >> >> > Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, 1833)   
   >>   
   >> >> >> IOW, to set the stage or goal that the following statement(s) were   
   >> >> >> to   
   >> >> >> address.  Yes, the 2A was about the arming of the state militias   
   >> >> >> rather than to rely on the feds in ArtI(8)(16).  It did so by   
   >> >> >> protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as a   
   >> >> >> resource pool required by the state) so that the state militias   
   >> >> >> would   
   >> >> >> not be disarmed by neglect from the central government.   
   >>   
   >> >> > Leif speaking:  What's the evidence in support of your  assertion   
   >> >> > about the "resource pool"?   
   >>   
   >> >> That is simply how I refer to it to keep it in modern language.  The   
   >> >> point is that the state militias were drawn from the citizenry and in   
   >> >> most cases were expected to bring their own arms not ones supplied by   
   >> >> Art   
   >> >> I.   
   >>   
   >> > Leif speaking:  In everything I find from the time of the Framers, the   
   >> > militia were defined in state militia law, which included all citizens   
   >> > capable of bearing arms and falling within certain age limits.   
   >>   
   >> Gee, and you told us the 2nd only applies to the National Guard. Seems   
   >> you   
   >> were wrong.   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  Wrong again.  It's the U.S. Supreme Court and the   
   > Fifth Circuit that said the National Guard is the modern militia.   
      
   Oh, then you deny your prior comments that the states can define their   
   militia however they like?   
      
   However, let's run with your claim here for a moment. Prove to me that the   
   National Guard is the only militia, the full extent of the militia, and that   
   no other militia or portion thereof is set forth anywhere in federal or   
   state law.   
      
   The explain to me if the meaning of the following would be both true today,   
   and in agreement with the orginial statement.   
      
   "The National Guard, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)