Leif <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1190263499.204359.138190@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 19, 2:33 pm, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Leif <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> innews:1190083380.898090.109280@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 17, 8:21 am, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> > <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Leif <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> >> innews:1190003663.704286.7890@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> > Each application of the term "the people" takes some of its
>> >> > meaning from its context. In the Second Amendment, the context
>> >> > is the well regulated militia. "The people" in that amendment
>> >> > were made up of all those nonexempt men who, under state militia
>> >> > law, were considered capable of bearing arms (capable of
>> >> > military service) as a well regulated militia.
>>
>> >> IOW, you feel that anyone over the age of 45 has to turn in their
>> >> guns since they have no right to have them?
>>
>> > Leif speaking: Of course I don't feel that "anyone over the age of
>> > 45 should have to turn in their guns," if they have their guns in
>> > compliance with all laws. But the Second Amendment is simply not
>> > involved, unless possession of the guns is in some way related to
>> > militia service.
>>
>> Second Amendment and RKBA are two separate issues.
>
> Leif speaking: I agree. The Second Amendment is about the right of
> the people as a militia to keep and bear arms for the security of a
> free state. An individual right to keep and bear arms is about the
> personal use of guns.
Actually, they were like squares and rectangles. You must be one in
order to the other as required. State militias, as they were set up,
required the right of the people to keep and bear arms as that was how
they were to be armed. However, there was no requirement that one be a
member of any militia in order to have RKBA. That same relation****p
exists today....and did in 1939.
--
RD (The Sandman)
"Once you sacrifice rights, it's hard to get those rights protected
again."
Senator Dianne Feinstein, on White House pressure to expand government
surveillance, meant for suspected terrorists.
Too bad she doesn't feel that way about other rights like the right to
keep and bear arms.
|
