From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)
Lines: 47
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <C5n0vy.EJ6@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:

>In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>-> 
>-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
>-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
>-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from 
>-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
>-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.
>
>No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
>and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
>an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the 
>people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
>that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
>cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional 
>interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
>of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
>of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
>how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.

       I'll point out that the whole point of the difficult amendment
process was to require a super-majority to change the Supreme Law,
making it impossible for a "majority" of the people to simply change
the law on a whim.  Simply changing the meaning based on "the
representatives" of the people effectively destroys the amendment
process.  The State's, you know, are also entitled to a say under
that process.
 
>> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
>-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
>-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a 
>-> number of times.  
>
>No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
>organized militia." 

       I'll note that that right could be considered protected under
the first amendment's protection of peaceful assembly.  Unless
you would consider a militia inherently non-peaceful, then they've
stated the same thing twice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
