115de43b   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "wy"  wrote in message   
   news:5d978267-11aa-41d3-ab47-8b86c12119b4@c7g2000vbe.googlegroups.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.   
      
   No, actually protecting the right of every Joe Blow to have his guns is   
   exactly the purpose of the 2nd.   
      
   So that when the militia was needed Joe Blow could show up armed and able to   
   perform his function in the militia.   
      
   >  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.   
      
   Sorry, but the right isn't that of the militia, but of the people.   
      
   Are you no longer able to vote because you're not in the National Guard?   
      
   Think on that carefully before you answer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)