e678c023
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 12:32, RD Sandman
wrote:
> wy wrote innews:927674ce-ac3d-4fbe-899d-3718
91c46b0@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Apr, 20:40, Steve wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:57:24 -0700 (PDT), wy wrote:
> >> >On 13 Apr, 18:50, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "wy" wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:5d978267-11aa-41d3-ab47-8b86c12119b4@c7g2000vbe.googlegroups.co
> >> >>m..
> > .
>
> >> >> > 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 o
> > r a V-6 in
> >> >> >> >> your car. Do you even need a 4?
>
> >> >> >> > When it comes to killing, need has everything to do with it?
> >> >> >> > H
> > ow many
> >> >> >> > times and how quickly do you *need* to kill?
>
> >> >> >> Look at the wording of the Second Amendment, and then go back a
> >> >> >> lea
> > rn
> >> >> >> what the founders had to say about it. The purpose of an armed
> >> >> >> citi
> > zenry
> >> >> >> is to protect the country from invaders, and if necessary, from
> >> >> >> the government itself. That being the purpose, does it not make
> >> >> >> sense t
> > hat
> >> >> >> we arm ourselves with the expectation of facing soldiers who
> >> >> >> will b
> > e
> >> >> >> armed with automatic weapons and other nasty little surprises?
> >> >> >> IN s
> > uch 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
> >> >> > i
> > n
> >> >> > the ordinary sense. The second amendment gave the right to bear
> >> >> > a
> > rms
> >> >> > 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
> >> >> > B
> > low
> >> >> > his gun just for the hell of it.
>
> >> >> No, actually protecting the right of every Joe Blow to have his
> >> >> guns i
> > s
> >> >> exactly the purpose of the 2nd.
>
> >> >> So that when the militia was needed Joe Blow could show up armed
> >> >> and a
> > ble 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.
>
> >> There is no such stipulation in the Second Amendment. There is
> >> nothing in the 2A that suggests that the RKBA is limited to the
> >> militia, MR i...@email.com
>
> > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> > infringed."
>
> > Is one's backyard included in that? I thought not.
>
> Read this from Heller v District of Columbia (2008) as ruled by the
> Supreme Court.
>
> Held:
>
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.
> 2-53.
>
> (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
> does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
> clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
> connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
You see why the judgment is a false and disingenuous one? It
redefines what constitutes a grammatical sentence. It even uses the
lame word "connote" to imply a possible perceived meaning to what they
considered was the "operative clause". The preamble, or prefatory, of
the amendment, referring to the militia, states the reason for which
the amendment is made. The operative clause offers the rationale for
the stated reason in the preamble. Therefore, the rationale of having
people armed is for the stated reason of there being a militia, all
explained in a single sentence. Otherwise, militia should never have
been included if it was only about people being able to keep arms.
>
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's
> interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males
> physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The
> Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
> people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized
> standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny
> Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and
> bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
> Pp. 22-28.
>
> (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-
> bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
> followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.
>
> (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious
> interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that
> unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
>
> (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
> and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late
> 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
>
> (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's
> interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553,
> nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-
> rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
> limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
> limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the
> militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
>
> --
>
> Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
