"Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1190663984.134782.314780@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 24, 1:15 am, "Scout"
> <me4g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Leif" <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Gee, and you told us the 2nd only applies to the National Guard. Seems
>> you
>> were wrong.
>
> Leif speaking: Wrong again. It's the U.S. Supreme Court and the
> Fifth Circuit that said the National Guard is the modern militia.
Oh, then you deny your prior comments that the states can define their
militia however they like?
However, let's run with your claim here for a moment. Prove to me that the
National Guard is the only militia, the full extent of the militia, and
that
no other militia or ****tion thereof is set forth anywhere in federal or
state law.
The explain to me if the meaning of the following would be both true
today,
and in agreement with the orginial statement.
"The National Guard, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms,
is
the best most natural defense of a free country"
I mean, you did say they were the modern militia, so I should be able to
substitute them in place of any historic useage of "militia" and the
meaning
should remain unaltered.
So rather than hiding behind the skirts of authority, let's see you defend
those statements and prove that what they say is true and that the
National
Guard is not only the modern militia, but the same type and manner of
militia considered by the Founding Fathers.
I don't think you can do so.
>>
>> Good to see you are man enough to admit the 2nd applies to considerably
>> more
>> people that those in the National Guard, it's at least a step in the
>> right
>> direction. Now if we can just get you to understand the meaning of
>> "people".
>>
>> > There
>> > was no "drawing" to be done. Some supplied their own guns and some
>> > didn't, but there was no obligation to have a gun before reaching the
>> > age of service.
>>
>> Which in Virginia is 16. So does that mean at the age of 16 one has an
>> obligation if not a duty to go to a gun shop and buy themselves a gun?
>
> Leif speaking: Does your Virginia state law say that 16-year-olds are
> militiamen who must provide their own arms and muster for militia
> training?
They are part of the militia, they can be called into service, and when
called into service everyone is expected to appear bearing arms supplied
by
themselves and of a type in common use at the time.
That according to your own authority, SCOTUS.
>> Hard to do when federal law prohibits such people from carrying out
their
>> obligations.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
I have to say it is amusing to watch you dancing all over the place there
Leif. On one hand you tell me the militia is the same as the people which
is
the body of the people, on the other hand you tell me the militia is
whatever the law says it is, and on yet the third hand you assert that
SCOTUS gets to decide who the militia is. You need to make up your mind
which of these three you are going to pick and stick to it, because all
your
hopping around does is show you are just making it up as you go and that
you
aren't as concerned with actually understanding the 2nd as you are with
advancing your assertion that the 2nd Amendment exists only to protect
federal troops from being disarm by the federal government.
|
