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

Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...


> Rep. Boudinot said, "What dependence can be placed in men who
> are conscientious in this respect? Or what justice can there be
> in compelling them to bear arms, when, if they are honest men
> they would rather die than use them."
> 
> By the way, if there is STILL any question about EXACTLY WHAT
> "bear arms" means, READ that again:

Yes Steve, read it again.
 
> "what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms"

Whoops, you left out,"...would rather die than use them."

> Compelling them to bear arms! There is no other way to read that
> phrase EXCEPT as "compelling them to possibly use firearms to
> kill while serving in the militia"!

Yes....to "use them". Of course, arms are rather hard to "use" if not
being bourne.

> Not "compelling them to
> 'carry a gun' on their person"... why would Congress want to
> compel ANYONE to carry a gun? Need MORE proof?:

So they could "use them" ?

> "The words 'in person' were added after the word 'arms,' (No
> person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms IN
> PERSON), and the amendment was adopted."
 
Simple explanation for that: If they had said "No people religiously
scrupulous...", then that could be taken as only a group of people
could claim religious exemption, not just an individual person.


ta tah...