From: rboudrie@wpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A. Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Lines: 249
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
>jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
>
>> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
>> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
>> >and unequivocally, without infringement.
>
>> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last 
>> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
>> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
>> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:
>
>> 	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security 
>                         ^^^^^^^ Militia
>
>> 	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear 
>                  ^^^^^ State
>
>> 	arms, shall not be infringed.
>        ^^^^ Arms
>
>You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
>the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
>Constitution. 
>
>> This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According
>> to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined 
>> structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.
>
>Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!
>
>    James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "Besides the advantage of
>    being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
>    every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to
>    which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers
>    are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of
>    ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
>    of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military
>    establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
>    carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
>    are afraid to trust the people with arms."
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>    James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789: "The right
>    of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed.  A
>    well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
>    country..."
>
>    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (on the organization of
>    the militia): "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with
>    respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it
>    will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of
>    a year."
>
>    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (speaking of standing
>    armies): "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the
>    government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
>    formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large
>    body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*****
>    own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
>    ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>But *surely* Hamilton and Madison didn't mean the PEOPLE when they
>said "people", right?  That's why the Amendment refers to "the Right
>of the Militia"?...  ;-)
>
>> Your average 
>> 17-45 year old male does not fall into the definition.
>
>You're right, the Militia consists of ALL able bodied males (and
>probably females under current interpretation). 
>
>> Therefore most
>> members of The Militia, the one the every gun advocate refers to, are
>> not members of a well organized militia and therefore are not directly
>
>The Amendment does nor refer to "well organized", it says "well
>regulated".  I have some targets you may examine if you wish to check
>how _well regulated_ I am. 
>
>> mentioned in the amendment.
>
>> If this amendment wanted to allow every member of The Militia to keep
>> and bear arms, why did it specificly mention a "well organized militia" 
>> in the SAME SENTENCE as the right to keep and bear arms?
>
>Correct.  That's why the Right is reserved to the People.  And that
>was to insure the People could form a "well regulated Militia", not a
>"well organized militia".
>
>> It could be
>> argued that the first part of the sentence is separate from the last 
>> part.  If so, why was it include in the same atomic unit of written
>
>What do Atomic Units have to do with this argument?  Any moron can set
>h_bar = C = 1...
>
>> instead of a separate sentence?
>
>Oh, I see what your question is; Why don't you read the federalist
>Papers?! 
>
>    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General
>    Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first
>    to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
>    recital of particulars."
>
>But what does Madison know about the grammatical style of the 2nd?  He
>only wrote it.
>
>> The amendment also implies that the right to arms has to due with 
>> the security of a free state.  The Federalist Paper's mention of a
>> well regulated militia gives many examples of how this militia protects
>> the security of a free state.  All these examples are actions of a
>> very organized force, not some John Q. Public with a gun.
>
>That's obviously because you've never actually *read* the Federalist
>Papers. 
>
>> All that the Second Amendment clearly states to me is that the people's
>> right to form well regulated militias shall not be infringed.  That is 
>> people have the right to join a well organized militia.  This well
>> organized militia will, of course, provide training in how to use arms
>> and in basic military tactics.  These training members of the militia
>> can keep and bear the arms.
>
>Can't read, huh?  Show me where the document says "well organized
>militia". 
>
>> Lastly, reading through the Federalist Paper's on well organized 
>> militia it is very clear that many of the reasons for these militias.
>> One reason stated is the protection from a standing army.  These days
>> the standing army could easily defeat a group consisting of every 
>> 17-45 year old male and female not in the armied forces.
>
>That is *exactly* why EVERY PERSON should be allowed to own *any*
>weapon currently in use in the armed forces.
>
>> Another
>> reason stated for well organized militias is to reduced the need
>> for a standing army.  Well, the US Armied Forces have been a standing
>> army for more than half the history of the US.
>
>But the major reason is to protect against that very same army.
>
>> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
>> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
>> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
>> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
>> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.
>
>    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
>    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
>    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
>    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
>    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
>
>    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
>    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
>    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
>    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
>    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
>    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
>    to raise an army upon their ruins."
>
>So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
>our Liberties and Rights.
>
>--
>Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
>Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
>drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
>powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
>become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
>separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

>> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
>> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
>> >and unequivocally, without infringement.
>
>> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last
>> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
>> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
>> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:
>
>>       A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
>                         ^^^^^^^ Militia
>
>>       of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
>                  ^^^^^ State
>
>>       arms, shall not be infringed.
>        ^^^^ Arms
>
>You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
>the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
>Constitution.

There are several ways in which one can choose to intrepret any 
constitutational issue :

   (a) Original intent
   (b) Subjectively intrepreted accordiong to political whims of the day.

If we use original intent as the basis for intrepreting the constitution, 
it is clear that the founding fathers intended that the individual citizen 
be allowed to bear arms similar to those used by soldiers of the day.

For references, I cite :

  - Federalist papers
  
  - "The Embarassing Second Ammendment", Yale Law Review, 
    Prof. Stanford Levinson [sorry, I don't have the date handy]

       Prof Levinson sought to prove that the 2nd ammendment did not
       convey an individual right, but concluded that it did, hence the 
       "embarassing" in his title.
 
  - Report of the Subcomittee on the Consititution, United States Sendate,
    97th Congress, Second Session February 1982.

  - U.S. vs. Verguido Urguidez (Supreme court case in recent years).  
    Although this case did not pertain to firearms, Justice Rhenquist
    notes that the term "the people" is a term of art conveying individual
    rights, and specifically cited several used, 2nd ammentment included,
    in his opinion.

  - Title 10, U.S. Code.  This states that all males between the ages of
    18 & 45 not part of the organized militia, and all female officers of
    the national guard are part of the unorganized militia.

Feel free to cite any scholarly and historical references you have to
support your position.  I could go on a greater length with my personal
proof by assertion, however, such a technique would carry no more or
less weight that your dubious proofs by assertion.

