On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The 2nd Amendment does not require one to be in a militia in order to
exercise the RKBA protected by the 2nd Amendment.

So I guess that part about "A well-regulated Militia being necessary
to the security of a free State" is the part you've never bothered to
read?

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The 2nd Amendment does not require one to be in a militia in order to
exercise the RKBA protected by the 2nd Amendment.

So I guess that part about "A well-regulated Militia being necessary
to the security of a free State" is the part you've never bothered to
read?

You guess wrong. You also, again, fail to understand the meaning of the
phrase. This deliberate misapprehension is commonplace amongst gun-banners.

No Supreme Court case has ever supported the notion that membership in the
Militia is a predicate to keeping and bearing arms. Ever.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You guess wrong. You also, again, fail to understand the meaning of the
phrase. This deliberate misapprehension is commonplace amongst gun-banners.

No, you gun freaks deliberately ignore the intent of the constitution to
support using guns for any purpose.

No Supreme Court case has ever supported the notion that membership in the
Militia is a predicate to keeping and bearing arms. Ever.

No one ever accused the US supreme court of being more intelligent than
the rest of the US. That's part of the problem in a society as violent
as yours.

Mike