74c92f15
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 12:26, RD Sandman
wrote:
> wy wrote in 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
> man
> > y
> >> > 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 antifederalists were against a standing army. Additionally, the
> militia for the central government is covered in Article I(8)(15 16).
> The Second Amendment covers the militias of the several states by
> protecting the RKBA of the citizens. They form the resource pool those
> militias were drawn from. Some of the antifederalist were afraid of an
> overreaching central government overcoming the sovereignty of the states
> by failing to arm their state militias through benign(?) neglect.
>
> Even our Supreme Court feels that the right to keep and bear arms is an
> individual right completely separate from any militia membership or
> participation. See Heller v District of Columbia (2008) and McDonald v
> Chicago (2010)
Heller is an incomplete case. It was forwarded by SCOTUS back to the
lower court for further addressing, which the lower court never
followed up on.
>
> > 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. The concept of militias was replaced
> > by the Militia Act of 1903 which replaced them with the National
> > Guard. By extension, the right to bear arms now applies to the
> > National Guard. Not every Joe Blow in the country.
>
> Go read Heller or Mcdonald. Hell, read them both.
The Heller decision was 5-4, a split decision weighing in favor of
right wingnuts because right wingnuts controlled the Court. That's
what makes it an invalid decision. It was also an incomplete
decisions. If you had actually read it, you'd know why.
The McDonald decisions was also 5-4, again favoring the right wingnut
controlled Court, and again making the decision invalid as such. The
reference to the 14th amendment to justify gun ownership is suspect.
There's nothing in the 14th amendment, without contorting the meaning
of it beyond all credulity as the right wingnut half of the Court has
done, that even remotely suggests there is a right to own guns.
> --
>
> Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,
>
> And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.
>
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
