01b22c85   
   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:88e5a6ad-e1ec-4365-8659-0c5d295ed177@gb2g2000vbb.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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   No, actually that is NOT a single thought. It is an INCOMPLETE thought.   
   That's why it's the SUBORDINATE clause.   
      
   " It's kindergarten English which apparently you haven't mastered yet."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)