Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:03:53 -0500, ulTRAX wrote
(in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):

> CountZero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:45:33 -0500, ulTRAX wrote
>> (in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
>> 
>>> It's rather curious that the Gun Nuts find a universal right to bear
>>> arms in language that clearly doesn't intend one: "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."
> 
>> Regardless of the reason (A well regukated militia...), the sum of the 
>> decision is that the right of the people shall not be infringed. Lacking 
>> an 
>> amendment to the Constitution, that right stands.
> 
> But the second amendment is about the state militias that were being
> reorganized by the frederal government per the COnstitution... and NOT
> all citizens... let alone slaves.
No, it isn't about state militias. It references them as a reason for not 
infringing a right, but the language "the right of the people shall not be 
infringed" couldn't be clearer.
> 
>>> If the First Congress intended a universal right all they had to do
>>> was simply write "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to
>>> bear arms."
> 
>> There's a telling remark- "Congress intended". It wasn't the purpose of 
>> the 
>> Constitution to "intend" or grant rights. Its purpose was to protect 
>> rights 
>> thought to be inherent by placing limitations on the power of government 
>> to 
>> abridge or infringe those rights.
>> 
> Which is why I believe the REAL universal right to bear arms is in the
> NINTH amendment not the second. But it's conditional on the 10th.
No. The right is explicitely defined in the Second, does not rely on the 
Ninth and is certainly not conditional on the State's whim. Like freedom of 
religion and speech, this is a right that the framers thought highly enough 
of to define in its own amendment.
> 
>  
>>> Or better yet: "A unorganized rabble, being necessary to the security
>>> of a free state, the right of untrained people to keep and bear arms,
>>> shall not be infringed."
>> 
>> Which untrained people are you talking about? At the time, it was assumed 
>> that most people were quite skilled in the use of firearms.
> 
> Trained in arms is different than being trained in military arts. The
> Congress was always disappointed in the performance of the militias
> and wanted them trained as soldiers would be. The Militia Act 1792
> specified what Congress meant by a well regulated militia. It wasn't
> goin' out shootin' squirrels with dad.
The Act specified the President's authority in calling out the militia and 
provided a standard organization of such militias. It also defined the 
militias as "free white males 18-45". That does not define "the people" in 
any other context used in the Constitution. That the militias were poorly 
trained in military arts and were in need of some organization does not 
negate the "people's right to keep and bear arms".
        CZ