75252171
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 21:57, "Scout"
wrote:
> "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."
What does a subordinate clause begin with? Let's see if you can
figure that one out to see if you know what you're talking about but
are actually bluffing at.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
