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

Diogenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Leif Rakur wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> "Enrolled" is a misnomer as the concept was simply that any man capable of 
> bearing arms was expected to do so, if needed. That is not an 
> 'authorization', as the right exists regardless of whether the state avails 
> itself of the resource, in whole or in part.

Leif speaking:  Here's what John Adams said about "enrolled":

" 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." . (Appendix to A Defence of the
Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, John
Adams, 1787)
> 
> Further more, the notion that to "bear arms" 'meant' military action is 
> simply untrue, as the Pennsylvania "Dissent of the Minority of the 
> Convention" expressed in one of their demands that some sort of declaration 
> of rights was needed:
> 
> "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 (p.143)by the civil powers."
> 
> It is clear that the term "bear arms" is not linguistically restricted to 
> matters of the militia or the national defense. Bearing arms for 
> self-defense and hunting were proper purposes.

Leif speaking:  If the Pennsylvania Minority had ended their statement
with the words "bear arms," that statement would have been understood
in the 18th century as a figurative reference to armed military
service, just as the similar structure in the Second Amendment is
properly understood. It took extra words to make a sentence using
"bear arms" literally:  "bear arms for defense of themselves and their
own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing
game...," for instance.
> 
> As Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Sec Ed, offers
> 
> bear
> .
> .
> .
> 12. to possess and use. To exercise.
> 
> It is, of course, nonsensical to have only a 'right to keep' arms one 
> cannot exercise the use of (bear).
> 
> The Pennsylvania "Dissent" also shoots <pun> to hell the idea that folks at 
> the time were thinking in terms of some 'right of the collective' notion.