"Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1190789818.807694.246440@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 24, 1:37 pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Leif" <leifrak...@[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?
>
> Leif speaking: The states can, and have, defined their own militias,
> but they cannot, by inventing an "unorganized militia," alter the
> Second Amendment, which specifies a "well regulated militia."
Two points.
1) I see you are revising your claim on who the people are since now that
term only belongs to those in a "well regulated militia" which you assert
must be organized. So tell me, in 1791 when they were speaking of the
"body
of the people" as being the militia, and the "whole of the people" and so
on, they didn't really mean that since only a very small number of the
people were actually organized? I mean if that wasn't the case then why in
1792 did they have to pass legislation in order to attempt to organize
them?
2) The state can classify ****tions of their militia however they like, but
they are and still remain the state militia. You told us the 2nd was
enacted
to protect this, but clearly you are now, once again, revising your
assertion since you now want to claim that the 2nd only applies to a
****tion
of such state militias.
>> 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.
>
> Leif speaking: You're becoming a Johnny One Note on the National
> Guard thing.
Hey, YOU are the one that keeps bringing up a source that says so. Maybe
you
should stop doing so if you don't agree. Otherwise, I have to figure that
you use that source quote because it reflects your views.
> If you want proof that the U.S. Supreme Court is
> correct about the National Guard being THE modern militia, I suggest
> you contact one of those black-robed gentlemen.
I note your inability to sup****t the very cite you bring to the
table....repeatedly.
> Personally, I accept
> their decision, but I have never made an arguement about it.
Oh, so you DO accept that claim and thus by your presenting it are making
it
part of your arguement. An claim, and arguement which you refuse to even
attempt to defend and which directly contradicts your own assertions and
arguments made elsewhere.
One has to wonder Leif when you can't make up your mind who the militia
is,
whether you really know what you are talking about or if you are just
trying
to invent excuses to justify your position.
>> 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"
>
> Leif speaking: States no longer require "the body of the
> people" (which meant, in 1789, the complete set of all those specified
> for militia duty under state law) to be enrolled in a militia company
> for military discipline.
Virginia certainly does.
> In fact, I believe exactly nobody is
> required to do this. Therefore, your whole concoction is meaningless.
Yet, you told me the states can define their militia however they like.
Seems you were wrong when you said so. However, as a member of the
ORGANIZED
state militia, I accept your admission that federal gun control violates
my
right to keep and bear arms since they infringe upon my right to keep and
bear arms.
Oh, and FYI, it isn't the NG.
Bet you're going to tell me know what I need federal recognition or
something.
>> 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.
>
> Leif speaking: The U.S. Supreme Court said it, I repeat.
However, you bring up this point, admit you sup****t it, yet disavow any
connection between your presentation of it with that of making it part of
your argument?
Leif, has anyone told you that you have a serious consistency problem as
well as a disfunctional understanding of the English language.
>> 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.
>
> Leif speaking: What do you think the modern militia is, Scout, if you
> don't accept the National Guard in that capacity?
The militia as set forth in total by federal and state law.
You know, the argument you've already made, and which you have proven was
the intent of the FF reqarding the militia.
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
Your inability to refute the point is noted.
>> >> 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
Silence noted.
|
