XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   From: sid9@   
      
   "Steve"  wrote in message   
   news:g7amm8lt3nvlseo92uul6g5ch9bdjb7udk@4ax.com...   
   > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:01:52 -0400, "Sid9"    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>"Wayne"  wrote in message   
   >>news:almarsoft.7843813904199304219@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:02:31 -0700 (PDT), wy  wrote:   
   >>>> On 14 Apr, 12:29, RD Sandman    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>> > wy  wrote   
   >>> innews:8ac7ca0d-4fb3-476f-85bd-415afec5a910@r7=   
   >>>> g2000vbw.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.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> It also states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the   
   >>>> security of a free State," which you keep conveniently ignoring as   
   >>>> being the first part of the same sentence that completes a single   
   >>>> thought.   
   >>>   
   >>> "A well regulated school system, being necessary for education,  the   
   >>> right   
   >>> of the people to read shall not be infringed"   
   >>>   
   >>> Your logic, if schools are eliminated, or if you don't go to school, you   
   >>> lose your right to read???   
   >>>   
   >>> Sheeesh... the USSC has already ruled on that militia issue.   
   >>> Spoiler alert: your side lost.   
   >>.   
   >>.   
   >>.   
   >>It ain't over.   
   >   
   >   Don't hold your breath.   
   >   
   >>A new case can be brought to a new USSC.   
   >>Young Justices sometimes change change.   
   >>They mature.   
   >>They become smarter.   
   >>It's never over.   
   >   
   > The government cannot even begin to control guns.  The government has   
   > proven itself to be powerless in keeping people from having stuff they   
   > really want.   
      
   True.   
   But we can do better than we are doing.   
   Any improvement would help.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)