rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:33 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
Probably on his own property. What exactly is it you mean by "with what
milltia?" There's only one - every able-bodied adult citizen of the
country.
When is the last time he drilled with them?
This is a strawman, and irrelevant.
What is his rank?
The highest "rank" of all - civilian.
To whom does he report?
God? To whom would you have him "report"?
Thanks,
Rich
If that's the best you can come up with for an explanation of his
participation in a "well regulated militia," you're a bigger ass than
I gave you credit for.
Sheesh.
If you're not willing to do the most basic research into the Federal
meaning of words like militia, you probably shouldn't engage in
discussions where you display your intentional ignorance for all to see.

David

So Mr. "well regulated militia man" trained himself in his back yard
and reports to the god of his choosing, and by virtue of that alone,
he should be allowed to arm himself to the teeth?

Did you read my entire post?

Yup.

Do you understand the difference between
the federal and state governments? The intention of the second
amendment had nothing at all to do with a federal militia. It had to
do with individual state militias that may have had been needed by
*the states* to defend against an out of control federal government.

Nope, it's talking about the security of a free state, as in a
political unit, like a nation, colony, province or whatever. Not the
individual states of the United States, but any political unit.

If you didn't take basic American history in high school, maybe you
should go to a community college and take a refresher course.

I took those courses, unlike you, though, I listened and learned from
them. The Bill of Rights deals with the rights of citizens. States and
governments don't have rights, they have powers and authorities
granted them by the citizens. As in "the right of the people".

David