6ee155b4
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 14 Apr, 21:45, "Scout"
wrote:
> "wy" wrote in message
>
> news:8af687c7-9637-4204-a0b0-6594fd6476fa@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Apr, 12:26, RD Sandman
> > wrote:
> >> wy wrote in 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
> >> man
> >> > y
> >> >> > 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 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 antifederalists were against a standing army. Additionally, the
> >> militia for the central government is covered in Article I(8)(15 16).
> >> The Second Amendment covers the militias of the several states by
> >> protecting the RKBA of the citizens. They form the resource pool those
> >> militias were drawn from. Some of the antifederalist were afraid of an
> >> overreaching central government overcoming the sovereignty of the states
> >> by failing to arm their state militias through benign(?) neglect.
>
> >> Even our Supreme Court feels that the right to keep and bear arms is an
> >> individual right completely separate from any militia membership or
> >> participation. See Heller v District of Columbia (2008) and McDonald v
> >> Chicago (2010)
>
> > Heller is an incomplete case. It was forwarded by SCOTUS back to the
> > lower court for further addressing, which the lower court never
> > followed up on.
>
> >> > 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. The concept of militias was replaced
> >> > by the Militia Act of 1903 which replaced them with the National
> >> > Guard. By extension, the right to bear arms now applies to the
> >> > National Guard. Not every Joe Blow in the country.
>
> >> Go read Heller or Mcdonald. Hell, read them both.
>
> > The Heller decision was 5-4, a split decision weighing in favor of
> > right wingnuts because right wingnuts controlled the Court. That's
> > what makes it an invalid decision.
>
> So because you don't like the ruling you simply dismiss it?
Yeah, kind of like the rulings you dismiss that are 5-4 not in your
favor.
>
>
>
> Some 'expert' you're turning out to be.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
