On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


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

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.
But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns. At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.

Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
until the moment I do.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie