Re: Kiddie exercises his right to bear arms

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:01:58 -0800, "Kevin C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>"Don Homuth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:26:08 -0800, "Kevin C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Don, nothing you've pointed out here counteracts "The right of the people
>to
>> >keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>>
>> It's all just the one sentence.
>>
> I freely admit I'm not a constitutional expert.  Correct me if I'm wrong,
>but amendments 1-10 is the our bill of rights.

That's what it's called, surely.

>  These are meant to be
>individual rights, not rights of the state government.  Why would the second
>amendment in a group of 10 amendments that spell out individual rights be
>only for the state?

Why do you believe that it does say that?  It clearly describes a
single very specific context, and does not delineate a Universal Right
that applies across the board.

The examples that discuss that are elementary.  Do we need to go
there?

><snip>
>
>> The US Constitution is silent on all local militias, save the one
>> specifically referred to within the body of it.  Unless you are of the
>> opinion that the terms State and Militia mean one thing in the body,
>> but quite another in the Second Amendment.
>>
>> They don't.
>
>Seems that if I follow your logic on this, I can prove my point as well.

No -- you can't and surely you don't.

> If "the people" in amendments I, IV, IX, and X means your everyday average
>citizen, then it must mean the same thing in the second amendment.  It does
>not say 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, when in the service
>of the state run militia, shall not be infringed.'

Doesn't it?

Then why is the prefacatory clause there in the first place?  If I
follow your logic, if the RKBA clause is all that was meant to be
said, then that's all that needed to be said.

And it's all that would have been said.

The Framers made it specific for a reason, doncha suppose?

Gun fondlers like to quote the RKBA clause all by itself, and pretend
that it's the Only clause in the amendment.  It isn't.  It's all just
the one sentence.  If you're going to read it, then you must read all
of it and interpret it as one sentence.

The RKBA as it pertains to a relationship between the several States
and the United States was only a Federal question when it came to
assuring that the Militia would be properly armed.  Indeed, that is
the rationale for it being included in the first place.

But the RKBA is alive and well, derived from the constitutions of the
several States -- each of which has a slightly different take on the
matter.

And it's just not a problem to handle it that way.  You will find, for
example, that even gun fondlers promoting CCW legislation are not
focusing on a federal approach, but are approaching state by state.

I quite approve of that approach.  That's Precisely where it should be
done, because it's the Only place where the question should be raised
and answered.  There's no need to make a Federal Question out of it at
all.