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

"CountZero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>
>
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right that
pre-exists the Constitutrion.

-*MORT*-