cd7b71d8
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: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? If no militia, then no need for people to bear arms. Get it?
Got it, and that's EXACTLY why the 2nd was enacted. So that if the
government failed to provide for the militia, or even have a militia...the
people would still be armed, and still able to provide for themselves even
given an apathetic or even outright hostile government.
So, clearly the 2nd does not and was not ever intended or written to suggest
the protection existed ONLY for the arms of those people in the militia.
Remember these were the people that had just fought a war against their own
government that was actively engaged in taking away the very arms they found
necessary to secure ALL their freedoms. So I seriously doubt they intended
to allow the government alone to decide who would be permitted arms, or
wrote the 2nd to allow that.
But that's what you want isn't it? To have the government decide who does
and doesn't have arms and then only when the government sees fit to have
them be armed? Your writings to date certainly suggest that. That argument
has been tried before, and even before SCOTUS and it was SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES
BY FACTUAL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE.
See DC vs Heller.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
