023800eb
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 19:50, "Wayne" wrote:
> "wy" wrote in message
>
> news:1c4a7b97-8e85-4f6e-ab4f-2e462ca50ce4@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> On 14 Apr, 17:09, Wayne wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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???
>
> # If there was no school system, there would be no need for people to
> # learn to read to justify a system that doesn't exist. See how it
> # works?
>
> That is some really tortured bullshit logic.
>
> # If no militia, then no need for people to bear arms. Get it?
> # The preamble defines the need, the operative clause defines what's
> # required to meet the need defined in the preamble. No preamble, no
> # need. Otherwise, just say what people should have a right to without
> # specifying what it's for. Comprendé?
>
> Comprende perfectamente, pendejo
> Pero todavia mierda de toro
>
> That militia question has been settled by the USSC and your side lost.
> (Has the Lone Weasel arisen from the dead?)
It really hasn't been settled. Not with a strictly partisan 5-4
decision that weighed in for the right wingnut half of the Court.
Remove 1 right wingnut judge and you would've had an impasse in the
court on the matter. Two dissents explained as follows:
Dissent (Stevens)
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to
maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern
that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a
national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state
sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the
arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest
by the Framers in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate
private civilian uses of firearms.
There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the
common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in
Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear
arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the
Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of
weapons, is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and
the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. The
majority fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that
the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate
civilian uses of weapons.
Dissent (Breyer)
The Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-
defense-related interests. Furthermore, the Amendment permits
government to regulate the interests that it serves. Colonial history
itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that
citizens would then have thought compatible with the right to keep and
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
