On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:36:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.



Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.

This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.


The subject had to do with the paperwork you'd like to see to enable
authorities to establish a 'chain of custody' in the even the firearm
was used to commit a crime.

Do you not remember all the pushing you've been doing on this issue?
Now you're wanting to go back and argue about the 'milita' definition?
Well, now the 'militia' consists of farmers, fisherman, business
owners, business workers, government workers, and all the retirees
therefrom, and anyone else I've missed.

As to your 'chain of custody', please explain why you think it's
necessary - again. Try to use some arguments that haven't been
debunked.