Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 30 Nov 2003 13:24:20 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
> wrote:
> 
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> On 29 Nov 2003 22:52:05 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >> On 28 Nov 2003 21:37:58 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> >Leif continuing:  If the Pennsylvania Minority had truncated its
> >> >> >statement, removing the supplementary words that make "bear arms"
> >> >> >literal in meaning, so that it said only "7. That the people have a
> >> >> >right to bear arms," it would have been understood in its military
> >> >> >meaning: "That the people have a right to render armed military
> >> >> >service." Then "bear arms" would have been used as it is in the Second
> >> >> >Amendment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >>     So, your saying that the people of this country have the right to
> >> >> join their own military organizations?  Albert Isham and GEE tried to
> >> >> pull this same stuff and it makes as much sense now as it did then.
> >> >
> >> >Leif speaking:  No, I don't say that.  The people, under the Second
> >> >Amendment, have the right, acting as a well regulated state militia,
> >> >to provide their own armed military service.
> >> 
> >>      Quit lying.  You basically said just what I interpreted above.
> >> Now you are attempting to say that the people have the right to form a
> >> federal or state military.  Will you make up your mind or are you
> >> going to continue to dance around the fact that you think that only
> >> the military has the right to keep and bear arms and that civilians
> >> should be keeping them in some sort of government lock up?
> >
> >Leif speaking:  What's your hubbub all about, anyway? I don't believe
> >I've said anything here about the federal military.  But since you
> >brought it up... Yes, the people of the United States, acting through
> >their federal government, have a right to form a federal military.  Is
> >that controversial or something?  The people of the states, acting
> >through their state government, have a right to maintain their own
> >state militia.  That's secured to them by the Second Amendment.  To
> >me, there's no reason for that to be controversial either.
>     
>      Then why didn't the founders say that in plainiEnglish?  Your
> contortions seem to indicate that yoiu believe that the founders were
> a bunch of illeterate idipots whan the wrote the Second Amendment.
> Why do you have to go to such contortions to make it say something
> that it obviously doesn't?

Leif Rakur speaking:  The founders wrote in the English language of
their day, 215 years ago or so.