b83bd39c
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 12:29, RD Sandman
wrote:
> wy wrote innews:8ac7ca0d-4fb3-476f-85bd-415a
ec5a910@r7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Apr, 18:50, "Scout"
> > wrote:
> >> "wy" wrote in message
>
> >>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
> > many
> >> >> > 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 citizen
> > ry
> >> >> 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 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.
>
> >> No, actually protecting the right of every Joe Blow to have his guns
> >> is exactly the purpose of the 2nd.
>
> >> So that when the militia was needed Joe Blow could show up armed and
> >> able
> > to
> >> perform his function in the militia.
>
> > Right. Within the function of a militia, not outside of it. The
> > second amendment stipulates "militia," not one's backyard.
>
> It states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms....". It
> does not say the right of the people while they are in the militia or the
> right of the militia or the right of the people while running to join the
> militia.
Then militia should never have been included in the same sentence. A
sentence completes a single thought. What is the single thought of
the 2nd amendment sentence? Right to bear arms for people within the
context of a militia. If all the amendment wanted to say is that
people had a right to bear arms, then that's all it should've said
without throwing militia into it. Otherwise, it could've also been
worded as: "Hunting for animals, being necessary to feed oneself, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
By including "hunting," it limits the right of guns to just hunting.
Without "hunting," people are given a right to guns without any
specification for that right. It's kindergarten English which
apparently you haven't mastered yet.
>
> --
>
> 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)
|
