Magus <Nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
> Scout wrote:
>> "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]
>>>> com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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]
>>>>>> .com:
>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>> ps.com:
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 20, 1:35 am, "Scout"
>>>>>>>>> <me4g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Leif" <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:1190263499.204359.138190@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>>>>>> groups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> egroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>
> No he doesn't. According to him it's those obliged to serve
> in the militia.
Correct.
> According to Weasel it's the federal government.
That's right, the people of the United States of America. As
you may recall, the United States of America is the federal
government. The United States of America is also the people.
The people is also one the several states of the United States
of America. Also any of the municipalities within the state.
The people is also the office of a district attorney in one of
the municipalities within one of the several states of the
United States of America. The people is also the city council
of one of the municipalities within one of the several states
of the USA.
You don't mind if I abbreviated the United States of America,
do you Magoo?
Now why don't you tell us what the word "citizenry" has to do
with the Second Amendment, and tell us if the citizenry and
the people are exactly the same thing, or different things.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
|
