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

Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> 
> "The Lone Weasel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > >
> > > "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:JJTxb.25410$Rk5.14612
> > @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.
> > > ..
> > >>
> > >> "The Lone Weasel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > >> message
> > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > >> > news:i8Sxb.25304$Rk5.18637
> > @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.n
> > >> > et:
> > >> > > "ulTRAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > > news:3513d8b1.0311261845.4c6daf75
> > @posting.google.com...
> > >> > >> "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > > news:<j6axb.23081$Wy4.17464
> > >> > @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> > >> > > >...
> > >> > >> > "ulTRAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > >> > news:3513d8b1.0311261345.f65aca9
> > @posting.google.com.
> > >> > >> > ..
> > >> > >> > > 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."
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Interesting how many people can't seem to see "the
> > >> > >> > right of the
> > >> > > people"....
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> MORE interesting that some can't see that the "well
> > >> > >> regulated militia" being consistent with the
> > >> > >> Constitution and the Militia Act can NOT mean
> > >> > >> EVERYONE.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Even more interesting is the fact that all of the
> > >> > > rights in the BofR are guaranteed to *all* the people,
> > >> > > *except* the 2nd Amendment.  Very convenient.
> > >> >
> > >> > What about the Fifth Amendment, according to you the
> > >> > Framers of the Bill of Rights meant the same thing when
> > >> > they wrote "persons" as when they wrote "people":
> > >> >
> > >> > "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
> > >> > otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
> > >> > indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
> > >> > the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
> > >> > actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
> > >> > shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
> > >> > twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
> > >> > compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
> > >> > himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
> > >> > without due process of law; nor shall private property
> > >> > be taken for public use, without just compensation."
> > >> >
> > >> > So you'd indict everybody all the time whether they were
> > >> > charged with a crime or not?  Or do you think maybe
> > >> > parts of the Constitution mean individuals when it says
> > >> > "person" and a class of the populace when it says
> > >> > "people"?
> > >> >
> > >> > Person = singular; people = plural.  That just makes
> > >> > sense, right?
> > >>
> > >> Thus by your analysis, the 4th Amendment doesn't protect
> > >> individuals since it speaks of the right of the people ( a
> > >> plural).
> > >>
> > >> However, I will simply note that a plural can also be used
> > >> to address a bunch of individuals.
> > >>
> > >> Human beings are not the Borg.
> >
> > > Thanks for handling that nonsensical argument for me Scout!
> > >  The Lone Weasel has been alone far too long I think.
> >
> > Well, he didn't explain why you claimed just the Bill of
> > Rights matters, not the whole US Constitution, and why you
> > think the Second Amendment grants individual gun rights when
> > it clearly grants a right to the people, which Snout failed
> > to discuss because he's an ignoramus, not to persons.
> 
> So are you actually trying to say that the BoR doesn't grant individuals the
> right to free speech or religion or Press,

Straw, silly person. Those rights are NOT written as applying to
THE PEOPLE! They are unqualified, and just says that Congress
shall pass NO LAW abridging those rights, hence, they apply to
ALL individuals!

> or to petition the govt. for a
> redress of grievances?

Ah, but HERE the only individuals protected are those who are
already enfranchised participants IN the govt, the enfranchised
freemen! Consider what the original purpose of the Amen was for
and WHO was involved in that activity:

Even the 1st Amen reference to THE People, which some harp on,
WAS originally written to refer ONLY to THE People in their
collective role! In one of the longest and most divided ongoing
House debates in 1789, the original phrase in what was to become
the 1st Amen was the flashpoint for what divided those who
sought more democratic input from those who wanted the
representatives to be more independent. The original words read:

"The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling
and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the
legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their
grievances." (Madison, June 1789)

Rep. Tucker wanted to add after "consulting for their common
good," "to instruct their representative." THIS was the nature
of the PEOPLE assembling that the Congress had in mind.

When the Mass Const is referenced against this, which Madison
surely had access to, there is less doubt that the intention was
for collective consistency; however, unlike in Mass, the US
Const was picked apart and reassembled by many authors, and the
end result may have lacked the unifying hand of one single
author or editor, as Mass did with Adams.

So, the enfranchised persons who made up THE PEOPLE, and who
COULD serve in juries/militias/legislatures/conventions, rather
than EACH "person" per se (which included women, children, and
other "second class citizens") were those Madison was primarily
concerned with protecting, since THEY were the only persons
whose right and expectation to be free from govt snooping
affected their ability to act freely and independently in the
public arena (juries/legislatures/conventions) free from fear or
intimidation. And this even comports with the NY and VA
proposals that said:

"That every FREEMAN has a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or
his property..."

Why did this say FREEMAN (sometimes FREEHOLDER) rather than just
person/citizen/individual? FREEMAN is the ONLY singular term
that leaves out ALL the citizens/persons/individuals who are NOT
those included in the enfranchised (AND propertied!) class known
as THE PEOPLE, and so referred to in every other instance!

Perhaps Madison and the Congress WERE JUST AS consistent as
Adams was in the MA Const of 1780 in using that term, even if we
didn't notice it at first!


IN all legal and constitutional usage THE PEOPLE (note, not just
"people" but THE PEOPLE) simply means the singular, collective
enfranchised body politic in its political capacity. It is made
up of the FREEMAN CLASS, which in 1789 was free, white males of
age, sometimes limited to property-owners or FREEHOLDERS. As the
general populace also included women, blacks, kids, foreigners,
indians, prisoners, etc, this was not the same thing. When the
Const says "person" it means an individual; when it says THE
PEOPLE, it means the collective class, taken collectively,
independent of the number or who is a member of the class at any
given moment.

In 1789 the "electorate" was IDENTICAL to THE People (the
enfranchised body politic ONLY comprised of Freemen who could
vote, serve on juries, or in the militia, and NOT every
individual PERSON, which included women, children and others who
were NOT part of the "electorate)!

THE PEOPLE is a legal term of art that has a specific meaning in
law and language; IF you don't know what the terms mean, they
may as well be in Chinese!

So, as the Bouvier Law Dictionary, THE 19th Century authority on
the subject of the MEANING of the TERMS used in the Const
stated:

The definition for the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA (see previous post) includes the 12 amendments ratified
up to 1856. The term "the PEOPLE" is used in those mentions.
Therefore, if one wants to know HOW the term "the PEOPLE" is
used in these lines:

13. - 1. Relates to religious freedom; the liberty of the press;
the right of the people to assemble and petition.
14. - 2. Secures to the people the right to bear arms.
21. - 9. Secures to the people the rights retained by them.
22.- 10. Secures the rights to the states, or to the people the
rights they have not granted.

one looks UP "People" and finds:

PEOPLE 
A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in
its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet.
S. C. Rep. 467.

and, as one is naturally inclined to do, one next looks up STATE
for further amplification:

STATE
This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense,
it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together
in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do
right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means
the whole people united into one body politic; (q.v.) and the
state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.
1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's
Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. Sec. 50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. Sec. 361.

In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the
positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial
powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by
the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has
passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means
the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of
Pennsylvania.

finding a (q.v., which see) one looks up BODY POLITIC:

BODY POLITIC: 
When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.
As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take
collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually
they are citizens, when considered in relation to their
political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of
the state. 

and, seeing CITIZEN, one looks that up:

CITIZEN:
, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of
the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in
congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to
fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended
sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons
born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of
the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes
men, women, and children.

3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the
descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are
not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption
of the constitution of the United States, each state had the
right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That
constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become
citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed
that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10
Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm


Sad as that last paragraph is, THAT was the legal reality up to
that point in time!

And the definition of STATE comes in part from:

Judge Story discusses the relationship between "the people" and
"the state" (equivalent expressions) and quotes Justice Wilson
with respect to the rights of states (a state being a "moral
person"). This carries weight, since the Justice Wilson is James
Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a part of the
first Supreme Court appointed by Washington, a professor of law
at the University of Pennsylvania, and above all, a delegate to
the Constitutional Convention where he served on the "Committee
on Detail," which was charged with putting the Constitution
into its final form. Here's what Story and Wilson said (I thank
Leif Rakur for providing this cite):

"§ 208. In like manner the word "state" is used in various
senses. In its most enlarged sense it means the people composing
a particular nation or community. In this sense the state means
the whole people, united into one body politic; and the state,
and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.2 Mr.
Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, uses the word "state" in
its broadest sense. "In free states," says he, "the people form
an artificial person, or body politic, the highest end [and]
noblest, that can be known. They form that moral person, which
in one of my former lectures,3 I described, as a complete body
of free, natural persons, united together for their common
benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating,
and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests, which it
ought to manage; as enjoying rights, which it ought to maintain;
and as lying under obligations, which it ought to perform. To
this moral person, we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified
appellation of STATE." - Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States," 1833.

NOW, put ALL that info together and go back and apply it to the
lines 13, 14, 21, and 22. 

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm

How was the right to arms understood in post-Revolutionary
America? We can attain great insight on this point by exploring
the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.[145] This document,
which was drafted by John Adams, contains the most carefully
written of all the state declarations of rights and constitutes
one of the best statements "of the fundamental rights of
Americans at the end of the Revolutionary period." [146] [Page
261]

In its preamble, the Massachusetts Constitution sets forth the
relationship between society and its members. The "people" or
"the body-politic" are "formed by a voluntary association of
individuals," who come together through "a social compact." What
is most remarkable is that, having distinguished between the
"people" and "the individuals who compose it," the document then
uses these terms in a consistent way throughout. This makes it
possible to discern with great clarity how the various rights
were understood, and whether they were viewed in individual or
collective terms...

In this way, the Massachusetts declaration draws a clear and
uniform distinction between the rights that belong to
individuals and those that belong to the people as a whole. This
distinction is followed so carefully that it is observed even
when both sorts of rights are implicated. Thus, Article XXIX
declares that the independence of the judiciary is essential
"for the security of the rights of the people, and of every
citizen."

Article XVII of the Massachusetts declaration reads as follows:

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common
defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of
the legislature; and the military shall always be held in an
exact subordination to the civil authority and shall be governed
by it.

In view of the declaration's careful usage, there can be no
question that the "right to keep and bear arms" that it
recognizes is one that belongs not to private individuals but to
the people in their collective capacity. This is made even more
clear by the fact that the right is to bear arms "for the common
defence," as well as by the overall concern of the provision: to
control the military force of the community and guard against
the danger of military tyranny. [148]

I have chosen to focus on the Massachusetts Constitution because
of the precision of its language, which strongly illuminates the
nature of the rights that it contains. Yet the same distinction
[Page 263] between "individuals" (or cognate terms) and "the
people" is also generally, although not invariably, observed in
the other post-Revolutionary state declarations of rights. When
these documents recognize a right to bear arms, they always
describe it as a right of "the people," rather than of every
"individual" or "man." [149] This is strong evidence that the
right was understood in collective terms."


Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means. 
by Akhil Reed Amar 
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm

"The amendment speaks of a right of "the people" collectively
rather than a right of "persons" individually. 

And it uses a distinctly military phrase: "bear arms." A deer
hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly
speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more
obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained
additional language that "no one religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in
person." Even in the final version, note how the military phrase
"bear arms" is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the
"militia" and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the
quartering of "soldiers" in times of "war" and "peace."
Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used
the phrase "bear arms" in military contexts and no other. 

... anachronistically, libertarians read "the people" to mean
atomized private persons, each hunting in his own private Idaho,
rather than the citizenry acting collectively. 

But, when the Constitution speaks of "the people" rather than
"persons," the collective connotation is primary. 

"We the People" in the preamble do ordain and establish the
Constitution as public citizens meeting together in conventions
and acting in concert, not as private individuals pursuing our
respective hobbies. The only other reference to "the people" in
the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787 appears a sentence away
from the preamble, and here, too, the meaning is public and
political, not private and individualistic. Every two years,
"the people" -- that is, the voters -- elect the House. 

To see the key distinction another way, recall that women in
1787 had the rights of "persons" (such as freedom to worship and
protections of privacy in their homes) but did not directly
participate in the acts of "the people" -- they did not vote in
constitutional conventions or for Congress, nor were they part
of the militia/people at the heart of the Second Amendment. 

The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian
reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause,
which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of "the
people" -- in essence, voters -- to "assemble" in constitutional
conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core
rights retained and reserved to "the people" in the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to
govern themselves democratically.
 
> >
> > Neither of you has explained why CJ Rehnquist is wrong on the
> > word "people".
> 
> Because as far as the Constitution goes, the word "people" encompasses
> individuals as well as groups.

But it's not simply "people" but THE PEOPLE! See above, for how
the term THE PEOPLE was used, and not simply YOUR fantasy
opinion. ONLY when the rights are distributive, as in the 4th
Amen, are individuals involved, but ONLY individual FREEMEN, NOT
each person in the country! Did blacks have 4th Amen rights?
Women? Kids? Felons?

> And if you believe different then you also
> believe that you don't have a right to free speech, unless you're with a
> group of like-minded *people*.

Bogus straw, silly person! The right of free speech is NOT
qualified by the term "THE PEOPLE"! So you show just how
unfamiliar you are with the actual words as used IN the Const!
 
> >
> > Why don't you tell us what you think, Duckaroo?
> 
> Oh, I think I just have...

Then you've shown yourself to be an ignorant and ill-informed
yahoo. To be so dense as to not even know that the right of free
speech is NOT one ascribed to "the People" is proof of your
lameness.

> and I notice that you've resorted to calling
> names Lone Weasel.  I find that people resort to that when they don't have a
> valid argument, though I could be wrong.

You are. You ARE a strawslinger, and ill-informed, but THOSE
terms have been demonstrated, so they are more than just
opinion. 
> >
> > [begin excerpt]
> >
> > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
> > houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
> > and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
> > issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
> > affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
> > searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> >
> > That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,
> > extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the
> > suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase
> > "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief
> > for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae
> > 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art
> > employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble
> > declares that the Constitution is ordained and established
> > by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment
> > protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
> > and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain
> > rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the
> > people." See also U. S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall
> > make no law ...  abridging ... the right of the people
> > peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, section 2,
> > cl.  I ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of
> > Members chosen every second Year by the People of the
> > several States") (emphasis added).  While this textual
> > exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the
> > people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First
> > and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are
> > reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a
> > class of persons who are part of a national community or who
> > have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this
> > country to be considered part of that community.
> >
> > UNITED STATES v VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 US 259 1990.TXT
> >
> > [end excerpt]
> >
> > Okay chump, tell us what you think.
> 
> That depends on what the word "is" is.

Defaulting the argument with irrelevant side-stepping allusions
to a former Prez. No debate points, Sparky.

-- 
Steven Krulick / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ellenville NY 12428-130727