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

David Lentz wrote:
> 
> Steve Krulick wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > That's how I feel each time I hand you your head.
> >
> > > Such is life:
> > >
> > >         When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
> > > people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
> > > with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the
> > > separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
> > > Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
> > > mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
> > > them to the separation.
> > >
> > >         We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
> > > created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
> > > certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
> > > and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
> > > Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
> > > from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
> > > Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
> > > the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
> > > Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
> > > organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
> > > likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
> > > will dictate that Governments long established should not be
> > > changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
> > > experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
> > > while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
> > > abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a
> > > long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
> > > same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
> > > Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
> > > Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
> > > security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these
> > > Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to
> > > alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the
> > > present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries
> > > and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
> > > an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts
> > > be submitted to a candid world.
> >
> > Irrelevant. Where is the term "bear arms" found above, or that
> > it is a fundamental absolute right? You just make assertions and
> > draw fantasy conclusions. The courts consistently kick your butt
> > on this:
> 
> How so.  Does a man have the fundamental right to dissolve his
> government?

*A* man? A single man? NO! Not even a GROUP of individual men
acting "at individual discretion." (John Adams)

Show any source material that says ANY ONE man may unilaterally
"dissolve" "his" govt!

Madison clearly disagrees with you:


THE PEOPLE have the right to alter or abolish their govt... but
ONLY when they are acting as THE WHOLE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE AT
LARGE, THE BODY POLITIC; individuals don't have that right, and
are correctly treated as rebels and insurrectionists when they
do.

Mr. Madison: "The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts
(Gerry), asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at
large; does he infer that the people can, in detached bodies,
contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of
the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the
constitution if they please, but while the constitution exists,
they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not
believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice
of the people, so far from it, their ideas may contradict the
sense of the whole people..."

Notice that Madison is using PEOPLE to refer to several levels
of collective "wholeness," from the "whole people," also the
"people at large," to "people... in detached bodies," to the
"inhabitants of any district." And note too, that "the
inhabitants of any district" which is a certain number of
individuals fewer than "the whole people" are not considered to
be able to "speak the voice of the people," and that even a
goodly number of individuals DO NOT equal or make up "the whole
people." Clearly, "the whole people," "the people at large,"
"the voice of the people," is NOT the same thing as EVEN plural
individuals, much less ANY particular individual!

Does "people" always mean the same thing, as some contend?
HERE, in ONE paragraph, ONE MAN, the MAN WHO WROTE THE BOR, uses
people in multiple senses: "people... in detached bodies" is
NOT "THE whole people." Can "people" (persons) as a bunch of
individuals "change the constitution"? NO, only "The whole
people" in their collective political capacity can do that.
There are things that ONLY THE PEOPLE as a whole can do, such as
"bear arms" against another nation, that each and every
individual can't do on his own.

That is why THE PEOPLE, collectively, can, and have the "right"
to, "keep and bear arms" since there ARE no one-man militias or
one-man declarations of war!

When it says THE PEOPLE, it MEANS THE PEOPLE, the enfranchised
body politic, taken collectively, just as Heyman says Adams
meant in the Mass Const:

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."


> If yes,

No, so the rest of your bogus argument is moot.

Why can't you address the REST of my post, Lint?


Why don't you go to the ONE usage of the term "bear arms" in the
DoI and see what was meant:

"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall
themselves by their Hands."

Did the King make Americans merely "carry guns"? What did
TJ MEAN by "bear Arms"? IT meant forcing them "to render
military service in person," JUST the way Madison used the term!

Until you get these terms straight, you're just pissing up a
rope. 

> then he must have the right to keep and bear
> arms if he feels the need to exercise that right, such as it was
> exercised on April 19, 1775.

THAT wasn't any legally recognized right! THAT was rebellion and
insurrection! It was an extra-legal appeal to heaven; if they
lost, they'd have been hanged as traitors, if they won, they'd
be hailed as patriots and founders!

Explain too how the same authors of the PA BoR in 1776 could
also write the PA Test Acts in 1777 that effectively disarmed
40% of otherwise qualified persons! 

> If no, then the United States of America is not a legitimate
> nation,

False bifurcation fallacy. The legitimacy of the US is based on
winning a war and getting Britain to sign a treaty relinquishing
all rights to sovereignty, and then the other nations accepting
this reality.

> and you should swear your allegiance to your Queen.

Bogus straw. Logic is not your strong suit, Lint. 

> David

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