1322819f   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   From: klausschadenfreude@yahoo.com   
      
   On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT), wy  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   TRANSLATION: There's no need to mention militia that wy could possibly   
   understand.   
      
   >The right would already exist for them   
   >to be able to form a militia.  The right would apply to both personal   
   >and militia use.   
      
   ALL the rights "already existed."   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Wrong.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That's funny. Obviously you haven't read any history.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)