Earl Grieda wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

AES/newspost wrote:


In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:



He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged

to

three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?

He

prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban

semi-automatics,

knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm

concerned,

that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried

to ban

that,
and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.



Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
sort of thing?

You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
terms.

Earl G.



That would be a reference, with three e's. Since you are too lazy to do
your own research, here's a little to get you started:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001008edkelly5.asp

http://www.nitewavesherrym.com/militia/militia.html


Do you think you can handle "well regulated" on your own?


Matt