"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "


I don't see what people don't get about this simple statement. Why do they
try to read all sort of crap into it that's not there nor was intended to be
put there.

If it were written in today's English it would be written thusly - "Because
a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A militia, at the time this was written, consisted of individual citizens
bearing arms - their own personal arms. If needed, a call was put out and
indivicual citizens gathered with their arms to fight an enemy. If
individuals weren't intended to have a right to bear their own arms there
would not be a militia. No milita that I've ever heard of at that time had a
bunker full of arms that were passed out to individuals. It didn't work that
way.


A well educated citizenry, being necessary for the civility of a free
state, the right of the people to gain and use knowledge, shall not be
infringed.



Obviously this means that only the citizenry can use knowledge as a
collective and the use of knowledge by the individual is not a right.

Huh? How so? Or are you being sarcastic. It's very apparent that "the
people" refers to individuals - not some group of indeterminate size.

Maybe, just maybe, the individual use of knowledge makes for an educated
citzenry, just as individual ownership of firearms makes for a militia. If
not we can then perhaps delegate knowledge and thinking to those selected
by the state, for the state's purpose.

The founders feared the power of the federal govt. The founders were
concerned about state's rights. Militias are a state voluntary military
consisting of individuals bearing their own arms. It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.

Wilbur Hubbard

Firearm abstinence is not an effective method of gun control. Studies have
shown that education along with the distribution of effective ammunition and
firearms training goes much further in reducing gun related injuries.

Abstinence is not an effective method of birth control. Studies have shown
that education along with the distribution of condomns and sexual
paraphenelia goes much further in the reduction of unwanted pregnancies.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:50:04 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.


Well, it seems you have misinterpreted fascism. One of it's founding
tenets is anti-liberalism. It is a movement of the *right*.

Dave wrote:
Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.

Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:20:03 -0500, Marty said:


Dave wrote:

Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.

Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.


Denied.

How about answering my question. - Pretty please!

Jim

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:50:39 GMT, JimC said:


How about answering my question. - Pretty please!


You have a reading problem, I take it? Here again is what I said.


If I recall, Larry Tribe, who knows at least a thing or two about
Constitutional law did an about face on this issue, and has come to view the
2nd Amendment as not being so limited.

Of course simply labeling those who disagree with you "rednecks" is about
the weakest for of argument imaginable.


That's what I said, and that's what I'm saying. Sorry if you wish I had said
something else. But I didn't.

I don't question that that's what you said. But you didn't answer my
question.

Jim

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:20:03 -0500, Marty said:

Dave wrote:
Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."
Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.
Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.

Denied.

Ah, I see, barrister and Judge, therefore outright fabrications
regarding adversaries views are perfectly acceptable, to say nothing of
evasive answers.

Cheers
Marty

http://www.mises.org/story/1111

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:39:26 -0500, Marty said:

Ah, I see, barrister and Judge, therefore outright fabrications
regarding adversaries views are perfectly acceptable, to say nothing of
evasive answers.

Cheers
Marty

Surely you don't have the same reading comprehension, Marty. He asked me
what I was saying. I told him what I was saying. Again.

No matter how many straw men you or he wish to set up and knock down,
they're your straw men, not mine.


Oh dear me, no Dave. You may accuse me of of offering straw men, I must
however humbly request that you quote said straw men.

I will however read the question back for you "Are you saying that you
think that the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment
is the same thing as "the people"? Or put another way, that the American
citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED militia." ".

So, to rephrase, in case you have a reading comprehension problem, are
"A well regulated militia" and "The people", synonymous, in this context?

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:11:17 -0500, said:

When are you going to treat us to an account of your recent cruise to Nantucket,
or wherever it was you were planning to go?

Actually, I had a report half prepared, and got busy with other things.

Didn't get as far as I had wished as a result of a number of things,
including weather and the need to go back for some engine repairs rather
than heading up to Buzzards Bay. Went to New London, Block for a couple of
days, Sakonnet, Tiverton (for the repair), back to New London (decided not
to try the Pine Island Channel in the dark) and back to Saybrook.


You have the little Yanmar one-lunger in that thing?

Cheers
Marty