a98b0042   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 14 Apr, 06:30, Steve  wrote:   
   > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:12:52 -0700 (PDT), wy  wrote:   
   > >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."   
   >   
   > So you can't specify which part of the 2A that you believe says the   
   > RKBA is limited to the militia..  iwq at email.com..  that's because   
   > it doesn't exist..   The RKBA clause is not modified by the militia   
   > clause, as anyone with a little knowledge in grammar structure would   
   > know.  Why don't you go back to posting nonsense reviews of TV   
   > programs?   
      
   If it was only about people having the right, there would be no need   
   to mention militia.  Boy, you're stupid.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)