42f09662   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 14 Apr, 11:50, Klaus Schadenfreude    
   wrote:   
   > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT), wy  wrote:   
   > >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.   
   >   
   > TRANSLATION: wy needs to ignore Supreme Court rulings because, well,   
   > he just doesn't like them.   
      
   The rulings don't say what you fantasize they say.   
      
      
   >   
   > >> >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.   
   >   
   > 'Fraid so. Need me to explain how that works?   
      
   I'm waiting.   
      
      
   >   
   > >> > 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.   
   >   
   > Really? You need it explained to you? I thought years of court cases   
   > would be enough.   
   >   
   > Let me know if you need help finding them.   
      
   I'm waiting.   
      
      
   >   
   > >> > 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.   
   >   
   > I don't have a "version." I just go by court cases.   
   >   
   > Having trouble finding them?   
   >   
   > Or are you using the Democrat Revised History of America?   
      
   I'm still waiting.   
      
   Oh.  Can't come up with them yourself, huh?   
      
   I thought so.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)