689f7a55
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 02:44, "Scout"
wrote:
> "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 context is militia. No matter how many different ways you try to
spin it, that's what it always will be. If it was only about the
people, the amendment would simply read: "The people have the right to
keep and bear arms," and that's it. But it doesn't. Get a clue
already.
>
> > 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.
Prove it.
>
> > 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.
The Miller case was incomplete because the Supreme Court remanded the
case to the federal district court "for further proceedings", which
never took place.
>
> 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.
I do know better. That alone should tell you something. But you're
too stupid to learn it.
>
> > 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 fact that the court is often 5 to 4 for one side or the other is
evidence enough for anyone to be suspect of its partisanship and thus
the illegitimacy of their decisions.
>
> >> >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.
Militia wouldn't have been mentioned at all if they were only speaking
of the people. Context. Right wingnuts aren't very good at grasping
context.
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
