home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   can.talk.guns      Discussion of gun ownership in Canada      54,497 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 52,891 of 54,497   
   wy to All   
   Re: Time for Mississippi to elect a new    
   14 Apr 13 20:19:10   
   
   0906171b   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 14 Apr, 22:52, "Scout"    
   wrote:   
   > "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.   
      
   Seems like it's the only thing you could understand, and likely relate   
   to, with the low grade IQ you've got.   
      
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca