cf67fc2e   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 15 Apr, 19:13, RD Sandman    
   wrote:   
   > wy  wrote innews:d655b5a1-fc14-458e-84bb-8bc7   
   cbb2083@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.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-ab47-8b86c12119b   
   > > 4   
   > >> >> @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   
   > >> >> >> lea   
   > > rn   
   > >> >> >> 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 t   
   > > hat   
   > >> >> >> we arm ourselves with the expectation of facing soldiers who   
   > >> >> >> will b   
   > > e   
   > >> >> >> armed with automatic weapons and other nasty little surprises?   
   > >> >> >> IN s   
   > > uch   
   > >> >> 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   
   > >> >> > i   
   > > n   
   > >> >> > the ordinary sense. �The second amendment gave the right to bear   
   > >> >> > a   
   > > rms   
   > >> >> > 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 th   
   > > ose   
   > >> >> militias were drawn from. �Some of the antifederalist were afraid   
   > >> >> of   
   > >  an   
   > >> >> overreaching central government overcoming the sovereignty of the   
   > >> >> stat   
   > > es   
   > >> >> by failing to arm their state militias through benign(?) neglect.   
   >   
   > >> >> Even our Supreme Court feels that the right to keep and bear arms   
   > >> >> is a   
   > > n   
   > >> >> individual right completely separate from any militia membership   
   > >> >> or participation. �See Heller v District of Columbia (2008) and   
   > >> >> McDonal   
   > > d 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.   
   >   
   > Not true.   
      
   Yes true.  I posted the link to the story earlier in this thread.  Who   
   knows where that earlier is in this thread since I;m not going to plow   
   through over 300 posts to search it out, but feel free to search it   
   out yourself.   
      
      
   >   
   > >> >> > 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   
   > >> >> > B   
   > > low   
   > >> >> > his gun just for the hell of it. �The concept of militias was   
   > >> >> > repl   
   > > aced   
   > >> >> > 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.   
   >   
   > Such as which ones?  He can't dismiss 5-4 rulings from the Supremes any   
   > more than you can as they become law of the land just like 9-0 decisions.   
      
   He can dismiss them personally in his own mind, the way right wingnuts   
   like to do it, like with Obamacare - 5-4.  It didn;t stop Repugnants   
   from passing a 34th bill to kill Obamacare *after* the Supreme Court   
   upheld it.   
      
      
   >   
   > --   
   >   
   > Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,   
   >   
   > And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.   
   >   
   > Sleep well, tonight.....   
   >   
   > RD (The Sandman)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)