Re: Sharing docum... OT gun control
Thomi Richards <[email protected]> Wed, 27 May 2015 10:59:18 +1200
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.user-groups.linux.dunedin.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAN2KdQ8Kd4DtL3jGMX-DdTaMa7V4VU-mERkyj44zXrZ6KOw5oA@mail.gmail.com> |
On 27 May 2015 at 10:04, Reece Arnott <[email protected]> wrote: > The solution was to be a 'stay at home' country, do away with the majority > of the army, and have everyone potentially able to be called up in times > when defensive actions were needed. The idea was that the rump army > 'professionals' could lead and train the 'amateurs' and the government > would save even more money if the ordinary citizen had his own weapon that > he knew how to use and trained with it occasionally in peace time with the > the local militia organisation. The specific text of the second amendment is (at least, one version of it): """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.""" Lots of people tend to ignore the first clause, and focus entirely on the second clause. What happens if you prove that the first clause is no longer true? -- Thomi Richards _______________________________________________ DunLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ethernal.org/listinfo/dunlug DunLUG Wiki - http://dunlug.kallisti.net.nz/