74c92f15   
   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:8af687c7-9637-4204-a0b0-6594fd6476fa@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...   
   > On 14 Apr, 12:26, RD Sandman    
   > wrote:   
   >> wy  wrote in 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   
   >> man   
   >> > y   
   >> >> > 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 antifederalists were against a standing army.  Additionally, the   
   >> militia for the central government is covered in Article I(8)(15 16).   
   >> The Second Amendment covers the militias of the several states by   
   >> protecting the RKBA of the citizens.  They form the resource pool those   
   >> militias were drawn from.  Some of the antifederalist were afraid of an   
   >> overreaching central government overcoming the sovereignty of the states   
   >> by failing to arm their state militias through benign(?) neglect.   
   >>   
   >> Even our Supreme Court feels that the right to keep and bear arms is an   
   >> individual right completely separate from any militia membership or   
   >> participation.  See Heller v District of Columbia (2008) and McDonald v   
   >> Chicago (2010)   
   >   
   > Heller is an incomplete case.  It was forwarded by SCOTUS back to the   
   > lower court for further addressing, which the lower court never   
   > followed up on.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> > 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.  The concept of militias was replaced   
   >> > by the Militia Act of 1903 which replaced them with the National   
   >> > Guard.  By extension, the right to bear arms now applies to the   
   >> > National Guard.  Not every Joe Blow in the country.   
   >>   
   >> Go read Heller or Mcdonald.  Hell, read them both.   
   >   
   > The Heller decision was 5-4, a split decision weighing in favor of   
   > right wingnuts because right wingnuts controlled the Court.  That's   
   > what makes it an invalid decision.   
      
   So because you don't like the ruling you simply dismiss it?   
      
      
      
   Some 'expert' you're turning out to be.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)