XPost: alt.politics, can.politics, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "!Jones"  wrote in message   
   news:c7t6cd1b615le9bbniurh9vb1ccu3qmc4v@4ax.com...   
   > x-no-idiots: yes   
   >   
   > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 00:07:37 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just   
   > Wondering  wrote:   
   >   
   >>That must by why it says, "The power of the states to arm   
   >>their militias shall not be infringed."   
   >>Oh, wait, it says no such thing.  Never mind.   
   >   
   > My goodness, JW!  This is a breakthrough!  I mean, I see evidence that   
   > you have actually read it and paid some attention to semantics; I have   
   > never seen you do that before.   
   >   
   > Let's take a careful look at United States history focusing on the   
   > debates that were swirling in the latter decade of the 18th century,   
   > shall we?   
      
   Go for it, and show us that ONLY the militia were to have guns and other   
   arms, and then ONLY when actually in service.   
      
   Maybe you can explain how they were to appear bearing arms provided by   
   themselves... if they couldn't even have guns until in militia service?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)