On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:33:21 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <g4cin9$8t7$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Mike Laight" <mklaight2005@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> First of all the issue of the well ordered militia has been argued
>> incorrectly...,mostly by the liberals but by the conservatives also.
Think
>> back to what was the purpose of a militia. The idea of a militia was
to be
>> the people's army. Volunteer when you believe it is time to be part of
the
>> militia and leave when you decide it is time. The founders wrote:
>> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State,
>> the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>> Both clauses, and this is where most people on both sides miss the
point,
>> are equally im****tant. Liberals want the first clause to be master of
the
>> second clause and conservatives want the second clause to be master of
the
>> first clause. Both of these interpretations are wrong because each of
these
>> clauses together make one point. The people of the United States of
America
>> must, at all times, and under all cir***stances, have no governmental
>> interference in forming a people's army at any time that a group of
citizens
>> deem it to be necessary and for any purpose that a group of citizens
deem it
>> to be necessary.
>No, that's not a reasonable interpretation of the language.
You can shutup anytime. The Supreme Court has already TOLD YOU the
ONLY POSSIBLE "reasonable interpretation of the language."
>I think they decided the case wrongly
And your personal opinion is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS in light of a
Supreme Court Ruling.
|
