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

"Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Diogenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[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.
> >
> > They have more right than that. And listening to what the
anti-federalists
> > were concerned with and demanding as assurances clearly shows that.
> >
> > The Pennsylvania "Dissent," for example:
> >
> > ?That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves
> > and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing
> > game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of
them,
> > unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from
> > individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous
to
> > liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be
kept
> > under strict subordination to and be governed (p.143)by the civil
powers."
>
> Leif speaking:  If the Pennsylvania Minority had ended the statement
> after the words "bear arms," their proposal would have been understood
> as a reference to armed military servce.

Sorry, but that is bullshit. It is well understood that bearing arms is NOT
something limited to rendering military service.

Of course you chose to ignore the historical context, so I can understand
how you wouldn't know this.