f4634ce8   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 15 Apr, 12:35, RD Sandman    
   wrote:   
   > wy  wrote innews:fbead967-f1ba-4b41-b151-a9fe   
   f5f62dc@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > On 14 Apr, 19:50, "Wayne"  wrote:   
   > >> "wy" wrote in message   
   >   
   > >>news:1c4a7b97-8e85-4f6e-ab4f-2e462ca50ce4@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com.   
   > >> ..   
   >   
   > >> On 14 Apr, 17:09, Wayne  wrote:   
   >   
   > >> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:02:31 -0700 (PDT), wy    
   > >> > wrote:   
   > >> > > On 14 Apr, 12:29, RD Sandman    
   > >> > > wrote:   
   > >> > > > wy  wrote   
   >   
   > >> > innews:8ac7ca0d-4fb3-476f-85bd-415afec5a910@r7=>   
   > >> > g2000vbw.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.   
   >   
   > >> > "A well regulated school system, being necessary for education,   
   > >> > the right of the people to read shall not be infringed"   
   >   
   > >> > Your logic, if schools are eliminated, or if you don't go to   
   > >> > school, you lose your right to read???   
   >   
   > >> # If there was no school system, there would be no need for people to   
   > >> # learn to read to justify a system that doesn't exist. See how it   
   > >> # works?   
   >   
   > >> That is some really tortured bullshit logic.   
   >   
   > >> # If no militia, then no need for people to bear arms. Get it?   
   > >> # The preamble defines the need, the operative clause defines what's   
   > >> # required to meet the need defined in the preamble. No preamble, no   
   > >> # need. Otherwise, just say what people should have a right to   
   > >> without # specifying what it's for. Comprend ?   
   >   
   > >> Comprende perfectamente, pendejo   
   > >> Pero todavia mierda de toro   
   >   
   > >> That militia question has been settled by the USSC and your side   
   > >> lost. (Has the Lone Weasel arisen from the dead?)   
   >   
   > > It really hasn't been settled.  Not with a strictly partisan 5-4   
   > > decision that weighed in for the right wingnut half of the Court.   
   > > Remove 1 right wingnut judge and you would've had an impasse in the   
   > > court on the matter.  Two dissents explained as follows:   
   >   
   > > Dissent (Stevens)   
   >   
   > > The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to   
   > > maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern   
   > > that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a   
   > > national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state   
   > > sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the   
   > > arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest   
   > > by the Framers in limiting any legislature s authority to regulate   
   > > private civilian uses of firearms.   
   >   
   > > There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the   
   > > common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in   
   > > Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear   
   > > arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)