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

Two Bears wrote:
> 
> "Roger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Steve, you can try and warp the meaning of those twenty-seven words in any
> > > manner you like, but their meaning is quite clear to any clear-thinking
> > > person.  The Goverment *cannot* infringe on the individual's right to keep
> > > and bear arms.
> >
> > As long as they are part of a well regulated militia, you are right.
> > Otherwise, it can, has, and continues to "infringe" on individuals right to
> > keep and bear arms.
> >
> > Look at the court cases. You're wrong.
> 
> Fuck the puppet filled courts.

Well, so much for YOUR accepting the US Const, and the role it
gives to the Judiciary!

So, if the courts disagree with YOUR fantasy beliefs, THEY must
be wrong, and acting on political agendas?

Or we can just ignore the courts and let YOU make all the
decisions! 

Nah!

> This should be easy for you to answer:

I smell a strawman coming.

> Forget that the 2ndA even exists,
> 
> *A well read electorate being necessary to secure proper public
> servants, the right of hte people to keep and read books, shall not be
> infringed*

Ah this hoary old bogus wheeze! Already dispatched, plagiarizer!

Ah, I see you've stolen that silly analogy again, still without
crediting it! No matter, it's not worth taking credit for!
Except you've added some stupid straw, beyond the original!

YOU tried to use this nonsense on July 10, and I replied thusly;
I don't recall you refuting my response:

> How about this: *A well read electorate being necessary to secure
> proper public sevants, the right of the people to keep and read books
> shall not be infringed*

> I'll take this slow for you...

That's clearly the only speed YOU operate at!

> According to whoever said that, the total of electorate (elgible
> voters) in all those states in in 1788 was around 300,000? or around
> 13%? of the population. That's alot of persons (many people)

Wrong. THE PEOPLE is a singular entity! THE PEOPLE is NOT plural
for PERSON! THAT's your first error of usage.

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), in this bogus example, the
right is ONLY "guaranteed" to those who were in the electorate!
THAT is not to say that others didn't have the RIGHT or that
they couldn't "keep or read books," only that THEIR right COULD
be infringed without violating such an
article!

> but it is
> not "everyone".

Correct. And neither is THE PEOPLE!

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:

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. - Bouvier Law Dictionary

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. - Bouvier Legal Dictionary

FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever
he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the
civil rights enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n.
164. See 6 Watts, 556: - Bouvier Legal Dictionary

That is, A Freeman can enjoy or invoke a right OF "the people
generally"! THE RIGHT is a collective right of "the people
generally" that an individual OF that class, as a Freeman, may
enjoy, if it is applicable and distributive!

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. 

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

("The Bouvier Law Dictionary remains the basis for the
interpretation of Law since the founding of the American nation.
In questions of law regarding legal definitions from that period
it remains the final arbiter of any disputed interpretation of
that law.")

So in the most narrow sense, "Citizen" is equal to "Freeman" and
the same class that defined "The People," that is, the
enfranchised voter. In the larger sense, it includes women and
kids, but not blacks or indians. Not until the Civil War was
this expanded.

Are they individuals? YES, but only in the context that DEALS
with them in their individual capacity.

So, THE PEOPLE CLASS is composed of FREEMEN which at any given
time is the enfranchised voter, "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." But
that still doesn't mean that a right of the CLASS is
automatically distributive to each component member.

> The impoprtant thing that whoever said this did not
> take the electorate lightly. Voting is organized under state law and
> if you are not registered to vote, you are not part of the voting
> electorate.

NOR were you a part of THE PEOPLE in 1789!
 
> Now, the next question is obvious...Does this mean that only the well
> read electorate can keep and read books ?

No, it's a meaningless question, strawslinger. READ my debunking
of your nonsense below.

This bogus nonsense, copped from Schulman and others, is like
comparing apples and oranges, as I've shown, to the actual
language of the 2nd Amen!

I've dispatched this nonsense (Schulman's argument, I believe)
before, which has nothing to do with the wording, purpose or
word usage of the 2nd Amen, but here it is again:

It ignores ALL the history of the debates concerning just what
the 2nd Amen WAS about, and makes words that have the EXACT and
separable meaning today as in 1790 identical to a VERB PHRASE
that CAN'T be broken without ignoring it's ACTUAL usage by
Madison and his contemporaries!

Because it is a lame analogy that equates the verb phrase
"bear arms" with two words that mean the same thing apart as
together... "read + books," it is invalid as an argument.

A lousy and inaccurate example, because read books is read +
books = follow the words in a publication. However, bear + arms
as in carry + guns is NOT the same as "BEAR ARMS" which is a
verb phrase that doesn't mean "carry guns," but, rather, "to
serve as a soldier or in the military."

I've seen this bogus analogy before, and it is not relevant;
"bear arms" is a verb phrase with its own specific meaning
DIFFERENT than the separate words themselves would mean, like
"practice medicine" -- not like "read books."

In this case, and it's really bad logic, the people who have the
right to vote (the electorate) have the right to keep & read
books; the others, non-voters, are not necessarily prohibited
from reading. But again, to follow this off-the-mark analogy,
there would be nothing to prevent a law saying non-voters could
be denied books that incite riots or lynchings. The real problem
here is that "read books" means the same thing as read (verb) +
books (noun); bear + arms does NOT mean the same thing as "to
bear arms" = serve in the military, fight.

There is NO linguistic connection between "keep and read books"
AND voting (at least a "well educated electorate" in which the
plural electorate is similar to the plural militia has some
similar structure), whereas to "keep and bear arms" IS directly
related to maintaining and serving IN the well regulated
militia.

Well, fortunately we don't have to deal with such nonsense
phrasing. But unless you accept that the term "bear arms" MEANS
to serve in the militia, you won't get the point, will you.

Try this one... suppose one of the FFs, perhaps Dr. Benjamin
Rush, got THIS Amen written and passed:

"A well regulated medical profession, being necessary to the
well-being of a healthy commonwealth, the right of the people to
study and practice medicine, shall not be infringed."

This is a little closer to the analogy. Who has the right to do
what here and why? The phrase "practice medicine" like "bear
arms" is not subject to being split without losing the meaning
we all recognize.

Otherwise practice (repetitive trying) + medicine (stuff in a
bottle) = repeatedly trying to get stuff in a bottle. "Practice
medicine" is a verb phrase, like "bear arms" is. Who "bears
arms"? Citizen-soldiers, i.e. those in the militia, not hunters
or security guards, who "carry guns" instead. Who "practices
medicine"? Doctors, not YOU, just because you take an aspirin.
Can just any one of "the people" practice medicine? NO, because
practicing medicine is part of a well regulated medical
profession, made up of doctors, just like "bearing arms" is part
of a well regulated militia, made up of militiamen who qualify,
train, and act under regulations. But there is nothing to
restrict any person of "the people" from becoming a doctor, so
long as they are authorized to "practice medicine" as part of a
well regulated medical profession. 

IF Madison had written "The right of individual persons to own
and carry weapons shall not be infringed," you MIGHT have a
point. But he DIDN'T. "Bear arms" was a term of art, a verb
phrase (and the extended version keep-and-bear-arms, too); you
can't break it up because you WANT to use 21st Century "logic."

The term's a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear (carry) + arms (guns) = carry guns, or
practice (keep trying) + medicine (pills in a bottle) = keep
trying pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows
that "practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.

You seem to be unaware of what the words mean AS they were
written in the 18th Century, AND what the courts have since
confirmed the "right" to be.

"To keep and" merely EXTENDS the verb phrase "bear arms," as in:

medicine
practice medicine
study and practice medicine
"Kildare has decided to study and practice medicine."

Keep-and-bear-arms is a term of art.

Now, I didn't use this to be an EXACT parallel of "keep and bear
arms," since that wasn't my purpose. But I will say that, just
as one needs to be licensed to PRACTICE medicine, not just
ANYONE can STUDY medicine, either. If you think so, try walking
into the Harvard Medical School, sit down in a classroom, and
tell everyone you're "studying medicine"! In order to STUDY
medicine, one must be ACCEPTED into an accredited Medical
School, and THAT means meeting very strict and demanding
requirements, something only a fraction of even college grads
can do, and THEN one must train and maintain one's grades and
performance over the entire study period of YEARS. 

So, sure, any 20-year-old has the same "right to study and
practice medicine" as anyone else -- in theory and potential --
but until he or she is ACCEPTED in med school, graduates, is
licensed, and opens a practice or works for a hospital or
clinic, that "right" is not exercised.

Likewise, in 18th Century America, SOME people (free, white,
property-owning, able-bodied males, 18-45, not in prison or
mentally-defective) had the potential right to "bear arms" but
until they were ACCEPTED into an authorized, well regulated
"trained band" "under military discipline," they were NOT
considered IN the Militia, and the "right" (and DUTY!) was not
exercised.

BTW, "keep books" IS subject to the identical verb phrase
interpretation as "bear arms", including "Madison's" final
clause in his original draft: "The right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well
regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but
no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be
compelled to render military service in person.":

"A well regulated accounting profession, being necessary to a
fiscally healthy commonwealth, the right of the people to keep
books, shall not be infringed; but no person mathematically-
challenged shall be required to keep books without a
calculator."

Here, and especially due to the final clause, as in Madison's
draft, the meaning of "keep books" is obvious; it MUST refer to
"financial bookkeeping" and NOT TO "possessing printed works of
literature." 

"Keep books"; "practice medicine"; "bear arms." In context,
unseparable verb phrases!

So stop peddling your silly and bogus analogies as if they
actually meant anything!

 
> Does this mean that only the well read electorate can read books?

No, strawslinger. See above.
 
> How about this one:
> *A well-fed militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
> the right of the people to own and work fields, shall not be
> infringed*
> Does this mean that only the militia can work the fields?

No, strawslinger. See above.
 
> Need some more? I have many.

And all of them irrelevant, bogus illogical strawmen. 

> Fuck the courts and the horses they rode in on....and I don't like
> their hats.

So you don't acknowledge the Constitution, eh? I figured as
much; you are a loonytarian anarchist who thinks he is an
individual sovereign who can opt in or out of the social
contract as he pleases, who can withhold allegiance if he
pleases; in 1777 PA, your failure to sign a loyalty oath would
have had you disarmed, disenfranchised, and otherwise absent the
rights THE PEOPLE had no reason to trust you with. 

> ta tah...

Fortunately, your crank position is not supported by reality.

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