91565abf
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 12:38, RD Sandman
wrote:
> wy wrote innews:b7e3a5af-cc2f-4b5e-8cc8-5992
fe02dbc@s9g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Apr, 01:23, "Scout"
> > wrote:
> >> "wy" wrote in message
>
> >>news:8ac7ca0d-4fb3-476f-85bd-415afec5a910@r7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com.
> >> ..
>
> >> > 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
> >> >> >> citizenry
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> And on what exactly, do you base this?
>
> >> It's not supported by the language of the Constitution, the period
> >> commentary, or SCOTUS.
>
> > The language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, you're the
> > confused one. The period commentary is irrelevant since there were so
> > many differing views. SCOTUS is more of a partisan judicial system
> > than an objective one. They'd be more credible if there were always 3
> > right wingnuts, 3 left wingers and 3 independents on the bench, with
> > neither ever outnumbering the other. A partisan SCOTUS, either left
> > or right, is suspect.
>
> Actually, the Supreme Court is made up of:
>
> 4 liberals - Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan;
>
> 4 conservatives - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito;
>
> And one swing vote - Kennedy
An ideal court would be 3 liberals, 3 right winguts, 3 independents as
the swing votes. Then and only then can judgments be deemed as more
objective and much less partisan, especially with 3 independents
keeping it from being so.
>
> --
>
> 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)
|
