b83bd39c   
   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:51c6f014-b7ba-4822-9681-770720c183f1@h1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...   
   > On 14 Apr, 12:29, RD Sandman    
   > wrote:   
   >> wy  wrote   
   >> innews: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.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.   
   >   
   > Then militia should never have been included in the same sentence.   
      
   I agree because some idiots like yourself can't read. The Founding Fathers   
   certainly screwed up there when they thought people would be intelligent and   
   educated enough to read a single sentence in English without screwing it up.   
      
   > A   
   > sentence completes a single thought.   
      
   Which it does.   
      
   > What is the single thought of   
   > the 2nd amendment sentence?   
      
   That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   
      
   Sentence structure - Main clause expresses a single thought. Subordinate   
   clauses do not.   
      
   >  Right to bear arms for people within the   
   > context of a militia.   
      
   Sorry, but I'm missing the grammatical link in which the people is   
   restricted by such a limit.   
      
   Can you post for me what language and by what rules of standard English   
   grammar that occurs.   
      
   Oh, and simply saying 'context' isn't going to cut it.   
      
   > If all the amendment wanted to say is that   
   > people had a right to bear arms, then that's all it should've said   
   > without throwing militia into it.   
      
   I agree, but the Founding Fathers apparently felt so strongly about   
   protecting this right that they chose to include an overwhelming reason why   
   this right needed to be protected. After all, an exercise of this right was   
   the only reason they could exercise any of their other rights, and it was a   
   rather brutal and bloody reminder that.   
      
   >Otherwise, it could've also been   
   > worded as: "Hunting for animals, being necessary to feed oneself, the   
   > right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."   
      
   Yep, and it would have expressed the same right of the people and it would   
   still would have been as protected against infringement....even if you   
   happened to want to own guns to use in the militia.   
      
   > By including "hunting," it limits the right of guns to just hunting.   
      
   By what rules of grammar?   
      
      
   > Without "hunting," people are given a right to guns without any   
   > specification for that right.   
      
   It's not a specification, it is a reason. Reasons don't limit the extent of   
   the protection they simply explain why the protection was felt necessary.   
      
   > It's kindergarten English which   
   > apparently you haven't mastered yet.   
      
   And yet you can't explain the rules of grammar by which the people is   
   modified by the word militia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)