1322819f   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 14 Apr, 10:29, Klaus Schadenfreude    
   wrote:   
   > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 07:27:20 -0700 (PDT), wy  wrote:   
   > >If it was only about people having the right, there would be no need   
   > >to mention militia.  Boy, you're stupid.   
   >   
   > People make up the militia. Boy you're stupid.   
      
   Then there's no need to mention militia if the people would already   
   have the right to bear arms.  The right would already exist for them   
   to be able to form a militia.  The right would apply to both personal   
   and militia use.  If it was only about people, the amendment could've   
   simply read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Period.   
   No mention of militia necessary.  But militia being used is the   
   qualifier as to what circumstances they have that right.  The reason   
   why militia was mentioned was because the US had a pretty piss-poor   
   army back then to cover all the territories, so essentially the   
   amendment "deputized" militias as a quasi-army, and of course for   
   that, people needed to be given a right to bear arms in order to serve   
   the functions of a militia to defend a free state in those places   
   where the army was too undermanned to do so itself.  Read your history.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)