6716f6c9   
   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:b7e3a5af-cc2f-4b5e-8cc8-59922fe02dbc@s9g2000vba.googlegroups.com...   
   > On 14 Apr, 01:23, "Scout"    
   > wrote:   
   >> "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 language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, you're the   
   > confused one.   
      
   I agree the language is quite clear...so the question is how do you ignore   
   what is plainly stated?   
      
   There is no grammatical connection by which the nominative absolute clause   
   can change, alter, modify, restrict or otherwise impact the meaning of what   
   is stated in the main clause.   
      
   The people are not the militia and that was well established. If they had   
   meant this right to exist only for those in the militia then they would have   
   said so. Instead they declared it was a right of the people, a much larger   
   expanse than the militia, and protected that right.   
      
   Then if there were any doubt the commentary and the statements by the   
   Founding Fathers make it quite clear that this right is not restricted to   
   just those in the militia.   
      
   > The period commentary is irrelevant since there were so   
   > many differing views.   
      
   No, actually they are universally consistent in their indication that it is   
   a right of the people not just those in the militia.   
      
   > SCOTUS is more of a partisan judicial system   
   > than an objective one.   
      
   And yet, they carefully examined exactly this argument and debunked it in   
   Miller.   
      
   Nor do I see you producing ANYTHING to show it is otherwise except your   
   unsupported assertion that some how you know better than everyone else what   
   the real meaning is.   
      
   >  They'd be more credible if there were always 3   
   > right wingnuts, 3 left wingers and 3 independents on the bench, with   
   > neither ever outnumbering the other.  A partisan SCOTUS, either left   
   > or right, is suspect.   
      
   Fine, they are suspect....but you're not showing where they were wrong.   
      
   I mean you want to suspect them, fine. You want to challenge what their   
   conclusion, great. However, you can't simply wave your hands in the air and   
   expect to be believed. Where is YOUR evidence? Where is your analysis? Let's   
   see what you've come up with and what factual support you have for your   
   conclusion on the meaning of the 2nd. Don't have one do you?   
      
   >> >The   
   >> > second amendment stipulates "militia," not one's backyard.   
   >>   
   >> The 2nd Amendment stipulated the right of the people, not the right of   
   >> the   
   >> militia.   
   >   
   > A militia was not made up of "people," it was only made up of males   
   > 18-45.   
      
   Exactly and thus when they speak of the right of the people....THEY ARE NOT   
   TALKING ABOUT THE MILITIA.   
      
   So you have just refuted your claim that they were. Because they are   
   different groups. If they had meant to address the militia then they would   
   have spoken of the right of the militia, not the right of the people.   
      
   > The 2A stipulates that the right only exists for those who   
   > form a militia that is necessary to defend the state.   
      
   Were exactly does it stipulate that?   
      
   After all, you're already on record as telling us that the people meant   
   something different than the militia, so how do you go from a right of the   
   people to a right of the militia?   
      
   >  If it meant   
   > people,   
      
   Then it would have said "...the right of the people..." which SOB is exactly   
   what it says.   
      
   >there would've been no need for the 2A to mention militia,   
      
   Except as perhaps a reason for why the right of the people really needs to   
   be protected.   
      
      
   > since the wording excluding militia would be a given that they'd have   
   > to be already personally armed to form a militia,   
      
   Or could at least chose whether to be so armed or not without the government   
   telling them they couldn't be.   
      
   > otherwise you can't   
   > have one that isn't made up of armed members.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)