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]
> > Diogenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > Leif Rakur wrote:
> > > > "Scout" <scout [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<bjRxb.27808$Wy4.
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > >
> > > >>"Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>
> > > >>>Pat Hines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED] s53>...
> > > >>
> > > >>>>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
>  bea
>  r
> > > >>>>>>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
>  "carr
>  y"
> > > >>>>>rather than "bear," since the phrase "bear arms" referred
>  specifical
>  ly
> > > >>>>>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](jc01
>  62))
> > > >
> > > >>Do you think that "bear arms" is an exclusively military function in
>  th
>  is
> > > >>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
>  themsel
>  ves
> > > >>and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of
>  killin
>  g
> > > >>game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of
>  the
>  m,
> > > >>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
>  k
>  ept
> > > >>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
>  o
>  f
> > > >>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
>  milit
>  ary
> > > >>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
>  an
>  y
> > > >>armed military function. As anyone with even a basic knowledge of
>  Engli
>  sh 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.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The people can "bear arms" in the 'military sense', if you
>  please,
> > >
> > > and not be in any 'authorized' by the claimant government military body.
> > >
> > > One such use is called rebellion, as in "The Revolutionary War"
>  (American
> > >
> > > people vs. Britain circa 1776).
> >
> > Leif speaking:  Even in 1776 the militia was organized by state
> > governments, although not always very well because of the difficulties
> > of the times. But by 1789 when the Second Amendment was written, all
> > men capable of bearing arms (rendering armed military service) were
> > supposed to be enrolled in the organized militia, unless specifically
> > exempted.
> 
> Well let's see, in 1776 not all militias were organized by the States.
> Certainly the Minutemen weren't, nor were the Sons of Liberty.
> 
> Further it wasn't until 1792 that the militia act was ratified that enrolled
> most men (not all that were capable of bearing arms, just most) into the
> organized militia.

Leif speaking:  The Second Amendment was written in 1789.  In 1787
John Adams had Published this descripition of the militia system:

4. The militia comprehends the whole people. By virtue of the laws of
the country, every male inhabitant between sixteen and sixty years of
age, is enrolled in a company, and a regiment of militia completely
organized with all its officers. He is enjoined to keep always in his
house, and at his own expense, a firelock in good order, a powder
horn, a pound of powder, twelve flints, four-and-twenty balls of lead,
a cartridge box, and a knapsack; so that the whole country is ready to
march for its own defence upon the first signal of alarm. These
companies and regiments are obliged to assemble at certain times in
every year, under the orders of their officers, for the inspection of
their arms and ammunition, and to perform their exercises and
manoeuvres. (Appendix to A Defence of the Constitutions of Government
of the United States of America, John Adams, 1787)

http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=141&parent=54


-Leif
> 
> Of course, this is still all moot, because the 2nd protects the rights of
> the people. So even if the militia didn't exist, and included no one....the
> people would STILL have this right, and it would be protected.