XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: Nope@noway.net
Scout wrote:
> "Leif" wrote in message
> news:1190664627.886364.76610@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 24, 8:23 am, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> wrote:
>>> Leif wrote
>>> innews: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. There
>>>> was no "drawing" to be done.
>>> No one said there was.
>> Leif speaking: Then we agree that the militia consisted of those who
>> were obliged to militia service by law, rather that being taken from
>> persons from the general public who happened to have a gun?
>
> So once again Leif is back to claiming the militia is defined under
> federal/state law.
>
> You really do need to make up your mind there Leif, exactly who defines the
> militia. Is it the Founding Fathers, the law, or SCOTUS?
>
> Oh, and no matter how the militia is defined.....the right is still that of
> the people. You do know who the people are, right?
>
>
No he doesn't. According to him it's those obliged to serve in the militia.
According to Weasel it's the federal government.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
