Leif <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1190610475.683296.272440@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 23, 7:55 am, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Leif <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> innews: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.
>
> Leif speaking: In everything I find from the time of the Framers, the
> militia were defined in state militia law, which included all citizens
> capable of bearing arms and falling within certain age limits. There
> was no "drawing" to be done.
No one said there was. Is English your first language?
> Some supplied their own guns and some
> didn't, but there was no obligation to have a gun before reaching the
> age of service.
Again, no claim of that was made.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
|
