On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:32:47 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in news:ilc7i8tcsjrqisfl36vbq4frkehhllhotc@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress