"Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1190664627.886364.76610@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 24, 8:23 am, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Leif <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> innews: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.
>
> Leif speaking: Then we agree that the militia consisted of those who
> were obliged to militia service by law, rather that being taken from
> persons from the general public who happened to have a gun?
So once again Leif is back to claiming the militia is defined under
federal/state law.
You really do need to make up your mind there Leif, exactly who defines
the
militia. Is it the Founding Fathers, the law, or SCOTUS?
Oh, and no matter how the militia is defined.....the right is still that
of
the people. You do know who the people are, right?
|
