d0dae8dc
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
XPost: can.politics
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"wy" wrote in message
news:c196c493-c4ac-429d-8432-6353b7e44439@16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Apr, 21:05, "Scout"
> wrote:
>> "RD Sandman" wrote in message
>>
>> news:XnsA1A285CFB20Ehopewell@216.196.121.131...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wy wrote in
>> >news:b168afae-18a8-4ea9-9b74-e492c526af28@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> On 14 Apr, 12:33, RD Sandman
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> wy wrote
>> >>> innews:ad458066-16bb-4921-97e9-bd8ca06c42b4@f1
>> >> 8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >>> > On 14 Apr, 01:58, "Scout"
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >> "wy" wrote in message
>>
>> >>> >>news:927674ce-ac3d-4fbe-899d-3718991c46b0@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.c
>> >>> >>om
>> >>> >> ...
>>
>> >>> >> > 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.googlegro
>> >>> >> >> >>ups .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
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> > t>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> In other words, you don't need a hi cap magazine for
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> anythin
>> >>> > g.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> 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 citizenry
>> >>> >> >> >> >> is to protect the country from invaders, and if
>> >>> >> >> >> >> necessary, from
>> >>> > the
>> >>> >> >> >> >> government itself. That being the purpose, does it not
>> >>> >> >> >> >> make sens
>> >>> > e
>> >>> >> >> >> >> that
>> >>> >> >> >> >> we arm ourselves with the expectation of facing soldiers
>> >>> >> >> >> >> who wil
>> >>> > l
>> >>> >> >> >> >> be
>> >>> >> >> >> >> armed with automatic weapons and other nasty little
>> >>> >> >> >> >> surprises? I
>> >>> > N
>> >>> >> >> >> >> 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 ye
>> >>> > t in
>> >>> >> >> >> > the ordinary sense. The second amendment gave the right to
>> >>> >> >> >> > bea
>> >>> > r
>> >>> >> >> >> > 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 th
>> >>> > e
>> >>> >> >> >> > second amendment is all about. It wasn't about giving
>> >>> >> >> >> > every Jo
>> >>> > e
>> >>> >> >> >> > Blow
>> >>> >> >> >> > his gun just for the hell of it.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >> No, actually protecting the right of every Joe Blow to have
>> >>> >> >> >> his gun
>> >>> > s
>> >>> >> >> >> is
>> >>> >> >> >> exactly the purpose of the 2nd.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >> So that when the militia was needed Joe Blow could show up
>> >>> >> >> >> armed an
>> >>> > d
>> >>> >> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >>> >> >> 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?
>>
>> >>> >> Absolutely,.
>>
>> >>> > Not mentioned in the Constitution. Next.
>>
>> >>> Neither is your free speech in a newsgroup on the internet. Does
>> >>> that mean you don't have it?
>>
>> >> If you actually read, and are able to properly digest, the First
>> >> amendment, it's not so much about giving everyone the right of free
>> >> speech as it is about Congress making no law abridging the freedom of
>> >> speech.
>>
>> >> "Congress shall make no law" ... respecting an establishment of
>> >> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ... "abridging
>> >> the freedom of speech," or of the press; or the right of the people
>> >> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
>> >> grievances.
>>
>> > And the Second Amendment is telling that same Congress not to fuck with
>> > the people's right to keep and bear arms.
>>
>> and I'm sure he's going to say something like 'but that's different'.
>
> No, more like, "Boy, you're stupid."
Ah, the gratuitous insult followed by running away. That would have been my
2nd choice what you would do.
Well I have to say that's probably the most intelligent rebuttal you could
come up with. Refutes nothing but certainly shows how little you can defend
your argument.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
