Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns993881B99A1AESandman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

swamp <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:m3g15318ma50ngvqipqrrbmqsh9c003fqn@xxxxxxx:

...pro-gun's continuing disregard
for the fact that 2A rights weren't meant to protect citizens from
one another, agreed. iow, I guess we disagree.

You keep repeating this without evidence -- read Parker and Miller
and you will see that any firearm commonly in use by the individual
soldier (and this also means the paramilitary police) is protected by
that "militia phrase" in the 2nd.

..for the protection of the nation, not the individual. If Parker and
Miller say differently, they're wrong.

You should read them to see what they actually do say. Anyway, that
said, the right to keep and bear arms is for many reasons. Protecting
the state from an overreaching central government is only one of them.
It happens to be the one the 2A is concerned with but just like the term
'free speech' protects not only political speech (it's original purpose)
but also magazines like Hustler.



What Swampy and the rest of the anti-gun crowd is trying to do is to say
that because the 2nd mentions "well-regulated militia" and "necessary",that
means the RKBA is ONLY for the "militia"(National Guard),despite the use of
the phrase "right of the people". The Second literally says nothing of the
sort.

It's very dishonest.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
.

Relevant Pages