a98b0042
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"wy" wrote in message
news:fec41f53-d233-43d1-8f94-766380165ee0@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Apr, 06:30, Steve wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:12:52 -0700 (PDT), wy wrote:
>> >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.goo
legroups.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
>> >> >> >> citizenry
>> >> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> 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."
>>
>> So you can't specify which part of the 2A that you believe says the
>> RKBA is limited to the militia.. iwq at email.com.. that's because
>> it doesn't exist.. The RKBA clause is not modified by the militia
>> clause, as anyone with a little knowledge in grammar structure would
>> know. Why don't you go back to posting nonsense reviews of TV
>> programs?
>
> If it was only about people having the right, there would be no need
> to mention militia. Boy, you're stupid.
As far as the right and it's protection....it is ONLY about the people.
Now if you want to talk about WHY that protection is needed, then we can get
into a reason they gave for that.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
