115de43b
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 13 Apr, 18:17, David Hartung wrote:
> On 04/13/2013 04:36 PM, wy wrote:
>
> > On 13 Apr, 17:05, RD Sandman
> > wrote:
>
> >>> In other words, you don't need a hi cap magazine for anything.
>
> >> So? What does need have to do with it? Do you need a V-8 or a V-6 in
> >> your car. Do you even need a 4?
>
> > When it comes to killing, need has everything to do with it? How many
> > times and how quickly do you *need* to kill?
>
> Look at the wording of the Second Amendment, and then go back a learn
> what the founders had to say about it. The purpose of an armed citizenry
> is to protect the country from invaders, and if necessary, from the
> government itself. That being the purpose, does it not make sense that
> we arm ourselves with the expectation of facing soldiers who will be
> armed with automatic weapons and other nasty little surprises? IN such a
> scenario, limiting the size of clips, could mean more dead citizens.
America had a tiny army in the late 1700s, too tiny to cover the
territory of the time. It wasn't even a full-fledged nation yet in
the ordinary sense. The second amendment gave the right to bear arms
for a militia to do the job of what the army couldn't do at the time.
The militias were a deputized form of the army. That's what the
second amendment is all about. It wasn't about giving every Joe Blow
his gun just for the hell of it. The concept of militias was replaced
by the Militia Act of 1903 which replaced them with the National
Guard. By extension, the right to bear arms now applies to the
National Guard. Not every Joe Blow in the country.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
