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:1190791608.850170.110940@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 24, 1:39 pm, "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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)