d5cf1224
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:8ac7ca0d-4fb3-476f-85bd-415afec5a910@r7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 Apr, 18:50, "Scout"
> wrote:
>> "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.
>
> Right. Within the function of a militia, not outside of it.
And on what exactly, do you base this?
It's not supported by the language of the Constitution, the period
commentary, or SCOTUS.
>The
> second amendment stipulates "militia," not one's backyard.
The 2nd Amendment stipulated the right of the people, not the right of 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.
>
> People within a militia. You can't have a militia of kittens.
True, but the people aren't the militia. If they had meant the right of the
militia, they would have said that.
>> Are you no longer able to vote because you're not in the National Guard?
>>
>> Think on that carefully before you answer.
>
> I won't. It's a stupid question.
No, it's a perfectly valid quest.
Since it helps us define exactly who the people are.
You claim they are just those in the militia. If so then it should apply
equally for any other use of the people.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
