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

On 26 Nov 2003 19:03:53 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ulTRAX) wrote:

>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 

    No it isn't.


that were being
>reorganized by the frederal government per the COnstitution... and NOT
>all citizens... let alone slaves.
>

    There is your wedge again.  Trying to break up the Second
Amendment piece by piece.  Divide and conquer?

>> > 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.
>

    It is there ALSO.

> 
>> > 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. 

    Raelly?  You can post congressional debates to that effect, I
presume?


The Militia Act 1792
>specified what Congress meant by a well regulated militia. It wasn't
>goin' out shootin' squirrels with dad.