Leif <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1190409691.547147.53540@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 21, 10:42 am, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Leif <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> innews:1190340183.822207.25630@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 20, 1:35 am, "Scout"
>> > <me4g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> "Leif" <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> >>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
>>
>> >> Sorry, I seem to have missed that "as a miliita" modifier. Where
>> >> exactly in the 2nd can I find it and by what process of grammar
>> >> does it become a modifier of "the people"?
>>
>> >> I mean you keep asserting this modifier is attached to the people,
>> >> but somehow you never seem able to point out where it is in the
>> >> sentence or by what process under the Standard Rules of English it
>> >> modifies the noun "people".
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> Yep, but again I see nothing that declares the right to keep and
>> >> bear arms shall only be protected for one purpose. Again can you
>> >> show me where in the 2nd it states that the right to keep and bear
>> >> arms shall not be infringed only for the purpose of providing
>> >> security for a free state, and by what process "security of a free
>> >> state" becomes attached to "shall not be infringed"?- Hide quoted
>> >> text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Leif speaking: The entire first half of the Second Amendment tells
>> > us that the amendment is about the im****tance of a well regulated
>> > militia in the security of a free state. If the amendment had been
>> > about individual gun use, Madison would have said so. Here's a
>> > rule from Judge Story that covers the im****tance of preambles:
>>
>> > "It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the
>> > administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key
>> > to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to
>> > be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the
>> > provisions of the statute." (Paragraph 459, Commentaries on the
>> > Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, 1833)
>>
>> IOW, to set the stage or goal that the following statement(s) were to
>> address. Yes, the 2A was about the arming of the state militias
>> rather than to rely on the feds in ArtI(8)(16). It did so by
>> protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as a
>> resource pool required by the state) so that the state militias would
>> not be disarmed by neglect from the central government.
>
> Leif speaking: What's the evidence in sup****t of your assertion
> about the "resource pool"?
That is simply how I refer to it to keep it in modern language. The
point is that the state militias were drawn from the citizenry and in
most cases were expected to bring their own arms not ones supplied by Art
I.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
|
