-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Federal Court Rules Citizens Do Not Have Individual Right to Bear Arms Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:07:58 -0500 From: Tiny Human Ferret Organization: Copyright 2002 all rights reserved. Non-UseNet transmission prohibited Newsgroups: alt.politics.immigration References: <8JKI9.11241$kz2.1163964@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Alan Illeman wrote: > > Iconoclast wrote in message news:8JKI9.11241$kz2.1163964@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > "Alan Illeman" wrote in message > > news:asvr12$uqd5v$1@ID-167834.news.dfncis.de... > [snip] > > > > > > Amendment II > > > 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. > > > > > > Obviously different interpretations are possible but I would think that > > > "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the people > > > in the militia, otherwise why mention it ? > > > > > > My other interpretation is that "the right of the people to keep and bear > > > arms" is "necessary to the security of a free state" which would suggest > > > all people can "keep" arms but only "bear" them when the security of > > > the state in in question, and then only as a member of the militia. > > > > > > > Given that for over two centuries the successive Supreme Courts, > > Presidential administrations, and elected Representatives have agreed that > > Americans can own rifles and handguns, it would seem questionable after 9-11 > > that all of a sudden a court decides that they were wrong all that time and > > Owning them is not the problem, it's when to "bear arms". > > > what that amendment really means is that the "militia" (like the one that > > gunned down students at Kent State or killed 82 people in Waco) is going to > > Neither of those cases IMHO involved a "militia". They were not about > "A body of citizens enrolled as a regular military force for periodical > instruction, discipline, and drill, but not called into active service except > in emergencies." (Thanks D. Long) but about armed career individuals > in goverment agencies. > > > be redefined in such a way that it means the government can arm only > > government soldiers to protect the people from a tyranny by the same > > government. The thought of defining the "right to bear arms" as meaning > > the right for the government to arm itself against citizens is in line with > > open borders, matricula consular cards, visas for dead pilots who have flown > > planes into buildings, full term abortions, demonizing Boy Scouts for using > > the word "God" in their charter, and same-sex marriages. > > [I can't help it if you're a boy scout in a same-sex marriage :) ] > > That's not what I'm saying at all. The government and some of it agencies > are already armed. Until I read what the Founders wrote (to get some > more context) all I can suggest is that perhaps at the time the amendment > was tabled, they didn't have a standing army to deal with threats of > security, and that perhaps this was the easiest method to raise a > (temporary) army to deal with a threat. In part, but in the part where you misunderstand, you are profoundly wrong, as in "couldn't possibly be farther from the truth". Some quotes: [ from http://www.universalway.org/militia.html ] First -- from 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, Sec. 177, late 2nd edition, Sec. 256, requires attention: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it." "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Further: Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764. George Mason, of Virginia: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, 'to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.' . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -- Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788. "That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788. Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts: "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -- Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788. William Grayson, of Virginia: "[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty." -- Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights. Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia: "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788. James Madison, of Virginia: The Constitution preserves; "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46. Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania: "The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787. "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. "As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789. Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787. Alexander Hamilton, of New York: "[I]f 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 rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29. Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania: "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775. Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts: "The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." -- Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789. Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789. Patrick Henry, of Virginia: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention. ------ Thus I think it's clearly safe to say that the Founding Fathers were very highly opposed, and with excellent reasons, to the formation of a Standing Army, which they felt -- again with excellent reasons -- to be nothing less than the enabler of oppression and the preferred tool of Tyranny. The general public armament was intended to be a check and balance against any government which would attempt to gather all power to itself. We may, thus, say in the US on the basis of history and of record, that any effort to subvert the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the US is unquestionably either the act of a government ignorant of history, or the the willful undermining of the liberties of a free people, prefatory to an usurpation of those liberties. -- Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae. Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/