e678c023
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:9875f653-9cdb-4a65-9efb-9aaac0880b87@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Apr, 12:32, RD Sandman
> wrote:
>> wy wrote
>> innews:927674ce-ac3d-4fbe-899d-3718991c46b0@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.googlegroups.co
>> >> >>m..
>> > .
>>
>> >> >> > 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 o
>> > r a V-6 in
>> >> >> >> >> your car. Do you even need a 4?
>>
>> >> >> >> > When it comes to killing, need has everything to do with it?
>> >> >> >> > H
>> > ow many
>> >> >> >> > times and how quickly do you *need* to kill?
>>
>> >> >> >> Look at the wording of the Second Amendment, and then go back a
>> >> >> >> lea
>> > rn
>> >> >> >> what the founders had to say about it. The purpose of an armed
>> >> >> >> citi
>> > zenry
>> >> >> >> is to protect the country from invaders, and if necessary, from
>> >> >> >> the government itself. That being the purpose, does it not make
>> >> >> >> sense t
>> > hat
>> >> >> >> we arm ourselves with the expectation of facing soldiers who
>> >> >> >> will b
>> > e
>> >> >> >> armed with automatic weapons and other nasty little surprises?
>> >> >> >> IN s
>> > uch 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
>> >> >> > i
>> > n
>> >> >> > the ordinary sense. The second amendment gave the right to bear
>> >> >> > a
>> > rms
>> >> >> > 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
>> >> >> > B
>> > low
>> >> >> > his gun just for the hell of it.
>>
>> >> >> No, actually protecting the right of every Joe Blow to have his
>> >> >> guns i
>> > s
>> >> >> exactly the purpose of the 2nd.
>>
>> >> >> So that when the militia was needed Joe Blow could show up armed
>> >> >> and a
>> > ble 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."
>>
>> > Is one's backyard included in that? I thought not.
>>
>> Read this from Heller v District of Columbia (2008) as ruled by the
>> Supreme Court.
>>
>> Held:
>>
>> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.
>> 2-53.
>>
>> (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
>> does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
>> clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
>> connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
>
> You see why the judgment is a false and disingenuous one? It
> redefines what constitutes a grammatical sentence. It even uses the
> lame word "connote" to imply a possible perceived meaning to what they
> considered was the "operative clause". The preamble, or prefatory, of
> the amendment, referring to the militia, states the reason for which
> the amendment is made. The operative clause offers the rationale for
> the stated reason in the preamble. Therefore, the rationale of having
> people armed is for the stated reason of there being a militia, all
> explained in a single sentence. Otherwise, militia should never have
> been included if it was only about people being able to keep arms.
Let's stop there for a second. If you feel a militia is needed, and that
militia needs to be able to serve even given an apathetic or even hostile
government....how exactly do you get that militia unless the people have
arms?
Is that the only reason to have arms?
Is that the only reason arms are protected?
No, it's just what they felt was a overwhelming reason to insure this right
was protected.
Giving a reason doesn't limit the application of the protection.
Keep reading this over until you understand that.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
