dd2baaf2   
   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:927674ce-ac3d-4fbe-899d-3718991c46b0@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...   
   > On 13 Apr, 20:40, Steve  wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:57:24 -0700 (PDT), wy  wrote:   
   >> >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.  The   
   >> >second amendment stipulates "militia," not one's backyard.   
   >>   
   >> There is no such stipulation in the Second Amendment.  There is   
   >> nothing in the 2A that suggests that the RKBA is limited to the   
   >> militia, MR i...@email.com   
   >   
   > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free   
   > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be   
   > infringed."   
   >   
   > Is one's backyard included in that?   
      
   Absolutely,.   
      
   >  I thought not.   
      
   But then your thinking is flawed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)