"Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1190791608.850170.110940@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 24, 1:39 pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Leif" <leifrak...@[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.
>
> Leif speaking: The states can define militia however they want, but
> that doesn't make their militia one that conforms to the
> Constitution. The Constitution, for instance, includes nothing about
> an "unorganized militia," and it specifies a well regulated milita.
> The U.S. Supreme Court says that the modern militia is the National
> Guard, as I'm sure you are aware by now.
So let's take these in order. On one hand you tell me they can define
their
militia however they want, and you have also told me the 2nd exists to
protect their right to do so, but now claim that they do not have the
right
to define their militia however they want. So tell me, who decides is a
militia is "well organized" or not, and can that body by refusing to
accept
any militia as "well organized" disarm the state by refusing to accept
anyone as fulfilling that requirement?
2nd, you admit that "unorganized" isn't disallowed, provided the militia
is
well regulated. Which you have already stated is determined by legislation
which regulates the militia. Hence if the militia isn't in violation of
the
militia legislation of the state, then it is by your established
definition
"well regulated".
Finally, I note your use of the SC quotation as part of your arguement,
and
hence the statements made therein are likewise part of your arugment. As
you
have done before.
>> 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Leif speaking: "The people" of the Second Amendment are the militias
> (the people as militias) of the states, of course, as I have pointed
> out and demonstrated throught the words of James Madison
Sorry, but all you have shown is your ability to misrepresent something
said
one time by one man. For all you know, Madison could have been speaking of
a
universal militia made up of the whole of the people which would make them
apply to the same body of people. Oddly, that seems to be exactly their
intent since a select militia was considered and REJECTED. Further for
your
assertion to have merit, you have to do is to show me either an
authoritative definition which matches your assertion, or adequate
presentation to show that such a meaning was well established and in
common
use by everyone at the time.
You ability to misconstrue and misrepresent something has already been
established. If the meaning you claim is valid then surely it would be in
an
authoritative source such as Webster's, American Heritage, or even Oxford.
Heck, they even include archaic and obsolete meanings. So if the meaning
you
suggest is valid you should be able to find it somewhere. I may even take
a
run down to the library later and see if I can supply you with a few more
listings for the meaning of people from other and older sources.
|
