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

"Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > "Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > "Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Pat Hines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > > > Leif Rakur wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ulTRAX) wrote in message
>  news:<[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."
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>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." Now that would be a Gun Nut's wet dream. No more
>  having to
> > > > > > > >>rewrite history or force round pegs in square holes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Leif speaking:  Sure, except Congress would have used the word
>  "carry"
> > > > > > > > rather than "bear," since the phrase "bear arms" referred
>  specifically
> > > > > > > > to armed military service.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it most certainly does not.  That argument is barely lucid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Leif speaking Do you think "bear arms" means "carry arms" in this
> > > > > > passage from the Journals of the Continental Congress?
> > > >
> > > > Leif speaking:  And, of course, you snipped away my example from the
> > > > Continental Congress, which says this:
> > > >
> > > > "And to prevent all disputes respecting the proper age of the drafts
> > > > and recruits, it is farther resolved that no person shall be received
> > > > as such, who shall be under the age of eighteen, or above that of
> > > > fifty, except in the case here after mentioned.But if there should be
> > > > among such rejected drafts or recruits, youths of above fifteen years
> > > > of age, healthy, robust, and likely to make able bodied soldiers when
> > > > of sufficient age, the Officers may agree to take such of them as will
> > > > enlist during the war as part of the quota of the State, and they may,
> > > > and shall be marched to the army, and employed until able to BEAR ARMS
> > > > , as drummers, fifers and officers servants, provided that the number
> > > > of such youths do not exceed the number of officers who are the quota
> > > > of the State, from which said youths are respectively sent." (My caps)
> > > > (A report from the Board of War, Journals of the Continental Congress
> > > > vol. 16, p. 249, March  11, 1780)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>  http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field([EMAIL PROTECTED](jc0162))
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think that "bear arms" is an exclusively military function in
>  this
> > > > > statement by the Pennsylvania Minority?
> > > >
> > > > Leif continuing:  And you didn't answer my question, but I will
> > > > nonetheless answer yours. I have never claimed that the Pennsylvania
> > > > Minority example (your posting of which is below} pertained to a
> > > > purely military function.  The Minority use of the phrase "bear arms"
> > > > is literal, and IS used in the sense of "carry arms." My Continental
> > > > Congress example, on the other hand, uses "bear arms" in its normal
> > > > military figurative sense, as does the Second Amendment.  When used in
> > > > the literal sense of "carry arms," supplementary words are necessary
> > > > to make that meaning clear. (In this case those additional words are
> > > > "... for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United
> > > > States, or for the purpose of killing game."  In my Continental
> > > > Congress example, on the other hand, "bear arms," as in the Second
> > > > Amendment, had no such qualifying words and was a military figurative
> > > > application of the phrase.   Used in this way in 18th century English,
> > > > the phrase was universally understood as a kind of shorthand for
> > > > "render armed military service."  This is quite clearly the use
> > > > applied in the Continental Congress example above. The following is
> > > > your quote from the Pennsylvania Minority Report:
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
>  themselves
> > > > > and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of
>  killing
> > > > > game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of
>  them,
> > > > > unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from
> > > > > individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are
>  dangerous
>  to
> > > > > liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall
>  be
>  kept
> > > > > under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.constitution.org/afp/penn_min.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems like they felt it was possible to bear arms not only in
>  defense of
> > > > > their own state, but also in defense of themselves and for the
>  purpose
>  of
> > > > > killing game.....neither of which are a function exclusive of any
>  military
> > > > > connotations.
> > > > >
> > > > > In short, your assertion that "bear arms" was exclusively and
>  totally
> > > > > understood to apply ONLY to a armed military function is BULLSHIT.
>  The
>  above
> > > > > period source clearly shows that one can indeed bear arms outside of
>  any
> > > > > armed military function. As anyone with even a basic knowledge of
>  English or
> > > > > the skill to use a dictionary could understand.
> > > >
> > > > Leif continuing:  If the Pennsylvania Minority had truncated its
> > > > statement, removing the supplementary words that make "bear arms"
> > > > literal in meaning, so that it said only "7. That the people have a
> > > > right to bear arms," it would have been understood in its military
> > > > meaning: "That the people have a right to render armed military
> > > > service." Then "bear arms" would have been used as it is in the Second
> > > > Amendment.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I answered your question. I showed that bearing arms is
>  NOT
> > > exclusive to an arm military function, and as such your assertion that
> > > bearing arms is limited to an armed military function is without merit.
> > >
> > > Further, the right comes in two parts, and I don't think you can make
>  any
> > > kind of case that keeping arms is something only the military can do.
> >
> > Leif speaking:  No, Scout, you did not answer my question, which was:
> >
> > "Do you think "bear arms" means "carry arms" in this passage from the
> > Journals of the Continental Congress?":
> 
> Ok, then let's answer the question.
> 
> Yes, they certainly must be large/strong enough to carry the arms they would
> bear, before they could do so.

Leif speaking:  Do you really believe that "healthy, robust" youths of
15 through 17 years of age wouldn't be able to carry arms?  What they
weren't considered capable of doing was "bearing arms" (engaging in
armed military service) until they were of "sufficient age."
> 
> Further I note that nothing in this passage contests the documented fact
> that one could bear arms for purposes other than rendering military service.

Leif continuing:  You might provide a few examples quoted from the
18th century where "bear arms" clearly has a literal meaning of "carry
arms" without any added explanatory words to make the term literal. 
When used without such extra words, it  invariably had the figurative
military  meaning ("render armed military service"), as in the
Continental Congress example I provided earlier, and as in the Second
Amendment.
> 
> There, happy?
> 
> 
> > >> >"And to prevent all disputes respecting the proper age of the
>  drafts
> > > > and recruits, it is farther resolved that no person shall be received
> > > > as such, who shall be under the age of eighteen, or above that of
> > > > fifty, except in the case here after mentioned.But if there should be
> > > > among such rejected drafts or recruits, youths of above fifteen years
> > > > of age, healthy, robust, and likely to make able bodied soldiers when
> > > > of sufficient age, the Officers may agree to take such of them as will
> > > > enlist during the war as part of the quota of the State, and they may,
> > > > and shall be marched to the army, and employed until able to BEAR ARMS
> > > > , as drummers, fifers and officers servants, provided that the number
> > > > of such youths do not exceed the number of officers who are the quota
> > > > of the State, from which said youths are respectively sent." (My caps)
> > > > (A report from the Board of War, Journals of the Continental Congress
> > > > vol. 16, p. 249, March  11, 1780)
> >
> > Leif speaking: Who said that "keeping arms is something only the
> > military can do"? Not me. Anyone who legally has arms can keep them.
> 
> Gee, that's nice of you. Of course, you insert the word "legally" which
> implies that the government can tell people that they can't have arms,
> something the 2nd Amendment prohibits. So care to try again without the
> false implications?
> 
> Further I still note that bearing arms is not limited to rendering armed
> military service.