XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA1A363041C864hopewell@216.196.121.131...
> "Scout" wrote in
> news:kkfjhp$u4n$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> "wy" wrote in message
>> 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@f18g2000vbs.googlegroups.
>>>> com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 14 Apr, 01:58, "Scout"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> "wy" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> >>news:927674ce-ac3d-4fbe-899d-3718991c46b0@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.
>>>> >>com
>>>> >> ...
>>>>
>>>> >> > 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.googlegr
>>>> >> >> >>oups .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.
>>
>> If you actually read, and are able to properly digest, the Second
>> amendment, it's not so much about giving everyone the right to keep
>> and bear arms as it is about Congress making no law abridging the
>> freedom to keep and bear arms.
>>
>> "...shall not be infringed" ... respecting the right to keep and bear
>> arms.
>>
>> You were saying?
>
>
> It's not at all about GIVING people the right to keep and bear arms. It
> is about making the federal government aware of that right and the fact
> that it is protected.
I think I said that even though I was using his own words against him.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
