XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Magus"  wrote in message   
   news:y0YJi.64425$Y7.64012@bignews3.bellsouth.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.   
      
   Well, he says that then turns around and ignores both federal and state law   
   and claims that SCOTUS says the militia is only the National Guard.   
      
   He really does need some consistency in his argument because his assertion   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)