BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

BAR[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:28:08 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:17:34 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:16:58 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 8/14/12 8:09 AM, Tim wrote:
jps

Here's a perfectly good thread for you-

I want to read a well-researched, accurate thread that describes how the
rabble of individual gun owners in this country is part of a
"well-regulated militia." There's no regulation of that sort whatsoever.

Since a militia is "A private, non-government force, not necessarily
directly supported or sanctioned by its government," who the hell
WOULD regulate them?

I think you need to go back and familiarize yourself with a dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

While you are at it you can read the US Constitution for the first time
or maybe the second time.

Article 1, Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress;

OK, so there is NO constitutional right empowering citizens to arm
themselves, correct?

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, they are
already an organized government entity.

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

There are similarities to the two phrases.

I'll let you off easy, since you fell into the "stupid logic"
conversation I was going to have with JPS.

This should help you sort out your position:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

My position needs no sorting out.