b8e13969
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 11:09, Klaus Schadenfreude
wrote:
> 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.
Translation: Klaus is too stupid to explain what that could possibly
be.
>
> >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."
Not constitutionally.
>
> > 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.
And look at Klaus being impotent at explaining why.
>
> > 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.
What? Nothing to back up your version of history? Yeah, I thought so.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
