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

Diogenes wrote:
> 
> Steve Krulick wrote:
> > "Cole Firearms Inc." wrote:
> >
> >>Roger wrote:
> >>
> >>>"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.
> >>
> >>The militia is everyone.
> >
> >
> > Guffaw. NO statute, code, or example you could point to has EVER
> > defined the militia as EVERYONE, every single individual person
> > in the nation. NEVER!
> 
> Horse hockey

So you opine. Where's your statute, code, or example of FACT to
refute me, and show that EVERY single individual person in the
nation was in the militia?
 
> [w]ho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country ...? I
> ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a
> few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future
> day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the
> future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor
> ....George Mason

The militia was NEVER everybody. Who was the militia in 1790?
Able-bodied, white, male, property-owners not in prison or
feeble-minded, approx. 18-45. No blacks, no women, no children,
no elderly, no cripples, no felons, no insane, no furreners, no
injuns. In other words, WAY, WAY less than half the US
population.

When George Mason said: "Who are the militia?... the whole
people..." he meant (as Madison and Adams meant by the same
term, "the whole people") they came from the same ENFRANCHISED
Freemen (THE PEOPLE as the body politic, the collective "people
at large" who could vote, and serve on juries and in the
militia) who comprised every class and background, rather than
just being from one economic or social class, but he feared that
may devolve in time. 

The context of "who are the militia?" was the composition of the
militia, not the personal rights of militia men. The universal
military obligation which Mason had in mind was enforced in the
Selective Service Acts of the twentieth century. Under the
militia system exemptions were generously provided. Men with
money could buy themselves out of their obligation or pay a
substitute. The exemptions under the Selective Service Acts were
much more stingy and much more strictly enforced.

Here, read the larger context yourself:

Mr. GEORGE MASON. "Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who
are the militia , if they be not the people of this country, and
if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans,
Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the
militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few
public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the
future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the
militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high
and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the
lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to
the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that
day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be
expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are
subject to militia duty.

Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be
no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or
rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The
representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no
fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in
their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and
lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a
more particular definition of their powers, and a clause
exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual
service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature,
then we might expect that the militia would be what they are.
But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes
of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the
same reason to expect it, because the government will be
administered by different people. We know what they are now, but
know not how soon they may be altered."

The Militia Act of 1792 spelled out who was exempt from militia
duty:

"II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the
United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the
government of the United States; the members of both houses of
Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house
officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers
who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the
post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any
ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots,
all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen
or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now
are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective
states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty,
notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under
the age of forty-five years."

And among those "exempted by the laws of the respective states,"
are conscientious objectors and those who could "pay an
equivalent to bear arms in their stead."

Only in that THE PEOPLE is the enfranchised body politic, and
the militia, DRAWN from the body of THE PEOPLE, is also the same
audience of ONLY FREEMEN he was addressing! THE PEOPLE is
composed of FREEMEN; the militia is composed of FREEMEN!

He did NOT say they was "absolutely NO distinction between the
militia and the people"! A 65-year-old free white male voter WAS
a member of THE PEOPLE, but no longer a member of the militia.

And, he was NOT addressing kids, women, or blacks. He was NOT
addressing indians, aliens, felons.

He was merely indicating that the same persons who comprised the
militia were the same enfranchised FREEMEN who voted, served in
office, and held the power belonging, not to Congress, but to
THE PEOPLE. 

> >
> > The militia in 1792 was DRAWN from "the body of the People" and
> > consisted ONLY of free white able-bodied males of age, WAY less
> > than one-half of the population! That is the MOST it could be,
> > before various exemptions kicked in.
> 
> Horse hockey. 

Do you deny the accuracy of my statement? Did the 1792 militia
consist of other than free white able-bodied males of age,
clearly less than half the total population of the country,
hence NOT EVERYONE, as was my original point?

> Which portion of the people the state chooses to make subject
> to call does not limit the scope of the whole militia, nor the right.

Then show the statue, code, or fact where the militia is
EVERYONE, each and EVERY individual without exception! Your
blatant assertion is not proof.

> > Today, the well regulated militia is mostly the National Guard;
> > the "sedentary" or "unorganized" militia, which didn't exist in
> > 1792, has no constitutional significance, and STILL is not
> > "everyone," just as the code says.
> 
> Horse hockey, and for the same reason.

So you blatantly opine.

> Not to mention a federally
> controlled 'National Guard' was precisely one of the objections.

In 1789; and not by all... Hamilton, Washington, and Knox among
others. 

And today ain't then. Tell us about the "sedentary" or
"unorganized" militia in 1792!

Show us where in the code THEN OR NOW, the militia, organized or
unorganized, is defined as EVERYONE!

> As expressed by Richard Henry Lee

Wrong again! You are one lousy researcher! It ain't Lee, but
Melancton Smith!

Just as when you said that JOHN Adams said what SAM Adams is
quoted as saying!
 
> "It is true, the yeomanry of the country possess the lands, the weight of
> property, possess arms, and are too strong a body of men to be openly
> offended--and, therefore, it is urged, they will take care of themselves,
> that men who shall govern will not dare pay any (p.141)disrespect to their
> opinions. It is easily perceived, that if they have not their proper
> negative upon passing laws in congress, or on the passage of laws relative
> to taxes and armies, they may in twenty or thirty years be by means
> imperceptible to them, totally deprived of that boasted weight and
> strength: This may be done in a great measure by congress; if disposed to
> do it, by modelling the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the
> men capable of bearing arms, be made a select militia, as has been
> proposed, and those the young and ardent part of the community, possessed
> of but little or no property, and all the others put upon a plan that will
> render them of no importance, the former will answer all the purposes of an
> army, while the latter will be defenseless.... I see no provision made for
> calling out the posse comitatus for executing the laws of the union, but
> provision is made for congress to call forth the militia for the execution
> of them--and the militia in general, or any select part of it, may be
> called out under military officers, instead of the sheriff to enforce an
> execution of federal laws, in the first instance, and thereby introduce an
> entire military execution of the laws."
> 
> "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and
> render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.... [T]he constitution
> ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a select militia, by
> providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and
> disciplined, and include ... all men capable of bearing arms; and that all
> regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless,
> by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military
> men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be
> avoided.
> 
But this still doesn't prove the claim, nor show the statute,
code, or fact that says the militia is EVERYONE!

THE PEOPLE has already been shown to NOT be EVERYONE, but only
the enfranchised body politic of FREEMEN!


"Gun advocates claim that the "right of the people" to keep and
bear arms is distributive, the right of every individual taken
singly.  But the militia as "the people" was always the populus
armatus, in the corporate sense (one cannot be a one-person
militia; one must be formed into groups). Thus Trenchard calls
the militia "the people" even though as we have seen, the groups
he thought of were far from universal. The militia literature
often refers to "the great body of the people" as forming the
militia, and body (corpus) is a necessarily corporate term. The
great body means "the larger portion or sector of" (OED,
"great," 8:c). This usage came from concepts like "sovereignty
is in the people." This does not mean that every individual is
his or her own sovereign. When the American people revolted
against England, there were loyalists, hold-outs, pacifists who
did not join the revolution. Yet Americans claimed that the
"whole people" rose, as Madison wrote in the Federalist, since
the connection with body makes "whole" retain its original, its
etymological sense— wholesome, hale, sound (sanus). The whole
people is the corpus sanum, what Madison calls "the people at
large." Thus "the people" form militias though not every
individual is included in them." (Historian Garry Wills)

But back to your irrelevant and out-of-context cite:

YOU are truly reading impaired, even with this cobbled and out
of context snippet! There is NO mention of personal rights of
individuals independent of militia service here! THE PEOPLE! ALL
MEN capable of bearing arms (the militia)! THE WHOLE BODY OF THE
PEOPLE!

OH, and it's NOT LEE!

BOGUS. Ever since Stephen Halbrook mistakenly attributed this
Federal Farmer snippet of Melancton Smith's as being from Lee,
EVERYONE repeats the sloppy error!

AS for "Richard Henry Lee's" quote, let's look at the larger
context; this was NOT about the 2nd Amen, but about the Const
ratification:

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from
this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on
every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be
influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see
many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can
prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding
against it."
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
(mistaken cite, as Lee didn't write it!)

And in another cite, it's sourced as "Richard Henry Lee writing
in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)."
Lee was an ardent anti-Federalist leader, whose own opinions
were not necessarily that of the ratifiers as a whole. The
ACTUAL author was Melancton Smith, a moderate anti-Federalist. 

"How to use them" refers to "trained to arms" which
distinguishes a well regulated militia, not those acting "at
individual discretion." The discussion was about state control
of militias and anti-fed sentiments against standing armies AND
select militias. (Lee lost the debate over standing armies, but
the Militia Act of 1792 created, in theory, a "near" universal
militia, rather than the select militia Hamilton favored, so Lee
sorta won that one.)

ALL the discussion was about the militia as the military
instrument of state government, not simply as a collection of
unorganized, privately-armed citizens. If you read the whole
original, and other extended quotes from the debates, you'll see
NO discussion of individual rights to own guns independent of a
state-run militia. (Does he say that this is an "unalienable
right" either, BTW?)

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm:
The Antifederalist critique originated even before dissolution
of the Convention, when George Mason, whose vision of
constitutionalism had been disappointed at Philadelphia, noted
his Objections.[331] These were published soon thereafter. Mason
was especially concerned that state bills of rights could not
protect individuals against incursions by the powerful federal
government. He lamented the absence of any federal declaration
of rights and noted particularly the lack of guarantees for
freedom of the press, trial by jury in civil cases, and security
against standing armies in peacetime. He made no mention of the
desirability of protecting an individual right to arms. When the
Constitution arrived before Congress in New York, Virginia's
Richard Henry Lee, who had not been at the Philadelphia
Convention, endeavored unsuccessfully to attach a set of
amendments similar in substance to Mason's Objections. Lee
proposed guaranteeing freedom of religion, of the press, of
assembly, and petition; trial by jury in civil and criminal
cases; the independence of judges; and free and frequent
elections. He proposed a ban on peacetime standing armies, on
excessive bail or fines, and on unreasonable searches and
seizures. Like Mason, Lee made no mention of securing to
individuals the right to possess weapons for private
purposes.[332] From the outset then, two of the most prominent
Antifederalist leaders articulated nearly all the major
principles that would eventually be written into the Bill of
Rights, but made no claim for a purely private right to arms.

So, you didn't mention where or in what context this was
said; it's usually attributed as: Additional Letters from the
Federal Farmer (1788) at 169. One problem: Lee didn't write
these; ever since Halbrook made the error, it keeps getting
passed on. Melancton Smith is regarded by historians as the
author, and this is another example of sloppy hoplophile
"research":

For a final example, consider the treatment of the militia
question by the writer known as the Federal Farmer, usually
identified in the current historical literature as Melancton
Smith, the moderate Antifederalist who eventually cooperated in
securing ratification by the New York convention in which
Federalists were a distinct minority. In his eighteenth and
final letter, the Farmer includes the Mason-like statement that
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people
themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure
unnecessary."[114] Halbrook, though mistakenly identifying the
Farmer with Richard Henry Lee, quotes at length from this essay,
which includes an important discussion of the difference between
a general militia composed of the body of the people and the
select militia which might turn into a tool of power.[115] But
again, the omissions are revealing. Like Madison in The
Federalist No. 46, the Farmer poses the problem as one of
allocating powers over the militia between two levels of
government. His definition of the militia is preceded by this
statement of the problem: "in a federal republic, where the
people meet in distinct assemblies, many stipulations are
necessary to keep a part from transgressing, [Page 145] which
would be unnecessary checks against the whole met in one
legislature, in one entire government."[116] The issue, again,
was a matter of allocating powers within a structure of
federalism, not of defining private rights. Moreover, in
discussing the advantages of a general militia over a select
militia, the Farmer actually winds up arguing against the idea
that the militia should consist of the entire population. His
own idea, the Farmer writes, was that "the federal head may
prescribe a general uniform plan, on which the respective states
shall form and train the militia, appoint their officers and
solely manage them, except when called into the service of the
union."[117] Such an "arrangement," he continues,

places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the
community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of
principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who
often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments:
by it, the militia are the people, immediately under the
management of the state governments, but on a uniform federal
plan ... .[118]

In this analysis, it turns out, there are two kinds of select
militia, neither of which comprises the whole body of the
people. A nationally organized select militia would likely draw
upon the worst elements of society, the dregs who formed the
feared regular troops of European monarchies; while a
state-based select militia (here equated with "the people")
would consist of the solid citizens, to the exclusion of the
same untrustworthy elements who could not be counted upon to
maintain the social order. And in both cases, the Federal Farmer
constructs his argument within a matrix of federalism; he never
posits the distinction between government (whether national or
state) and population on which the individual right
interpretation relies.

Beyond illustrating the propensity of individual right writers
to truncate quotations mercilessly, the consideration of these
debates and texts demonstrates that the discussions of 1787-88
were preoccupied with the question of the militia, and that this
question was addressed almost exclusively under the rubric of
federalism. Whether there was, or should be, a private,
constitutionally sanctioned right to own and use firearms was
simply not at issue. The rhetoric of ratification certainly
included many statements from both sides on the advantages of a
well regulated militia as a valuable [Page 146] alternative to a
standing army, but such statements did not require either side
to reach the question of the nature and extent of the private
rights of ownership and use, much less the question of the power
of the states to legislate should the use of firearms prove
inimical to the health and welfare of society.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm

> >
> > Webster had a very clear understanding of a militia:
> >
> > MILITIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier ....] The body of soldiers
> > in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual
> > service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular
> > troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The
> > militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into
> > companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades
> > and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days
> > only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
> > 2 Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language
> > (New York, S. Converse 1828) (emphasis added). Note that this
> > definition is itself quite narrow, even before attaching the
> > "well regulated" modifier of the Second Amendment's text.
> >
> > The colonial militia was an organized military force whose
> > members were subject to various legal requirements imposed by
> > the colonies and then by the states. For instance, militiamen
> > were required by law to muster for training several days a year
> > and to supply their own equipment for militia use, including
> > guns and horses. (The personal arms of the militiamen were
> > supplemented by militia arms from government armories.) The term
> > "well regulated" in the Second Amendment reinforces the idea of
> > an organized military force subject to state governmental
> > control. In sum, the militia in 18th century America was a form
> > of compulsory military service imposed upon much of the male
> > population or, to borrow a phase from the late Chief Justice
> > Warren Burger, a "state army." (See Appendix B, Article by
> > Justice Burger.)" http://www.gunlawsuits.com/nramyths.asp
> >
> > You were either IN or NOT in the ONE and ONLY ORGANIZED WELL
> > REGULATED MILITIA. There was NO "unorganized" militia one could
> > be in in 1792, when the Militia Act was passed. IF you were one
> > of the "males physically capable of acting in concert for the
> > common defense," then, with the exemptions mentioned, you HAD to
> > enroll in THE militia that Webster described. You were NOT in
> > some "limbo" type of "sedentary" militia, sitting around waiting
> > for who knows what, yet claiming, somehow to BE in the militia
> > by right of... well, what?
> >
> > "No one was a member of the militia who had not joined an
> > authorized "trained band" and been trained. So important is
> > proper training that we often find "well-regulated" followed by
> > an epexegetic phrase, spelling out the meaning of the term: "a
> > well regulated militia, trained to arms" was the form Elbridge
> > Gerry preferred for the Second Amendment. More expansively
> > the Virginia ratifying convention suggested "a well-regulated
> > militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms."
> > (Garry Wills)
> >
> 
> Poppycock

You haven't refuted a word I said with your gainsaying opinion.
 
> Again, to Richard Henry Lee from the same section:

Smith, not Lee!
 
> Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order in the
> state ... the end of the social compact is defeated ...
> 
> No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without
> uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the
> defence of the state .... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of
> the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their
> property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.[

That doesn't refute a word I said. Even a "universal" militia is
NOT EVERYONE!!!

ONLY FREEMEN! Free, white able-bodied males 18-45 is NOT
EVERYONE! ARE you hard-of-reading?

> And since you like to dabble in Webster's 1828,
> 
> PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.]
> 
> 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We
> say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English
> people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it
> comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or
> any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.
> 
> "Any portion" includes that portion known as 1.

More bogus selective citing!

The logical fallacy you are NOW employing (assuming you are
clever enough to do this disingenuously; I'll wager you are just
ignorant and grasping at straws!) is one of ambiguity,
specifically the Fallacy of Equivocation, where one word has
multiple uses, and YOU have picked the irrelevant one to this
usage as if it WERE the correct one.

This is NOT the legal dictionary definition that applies to how
the term of art THE PEOPLE is used in the Const!

See, if we take ALL the definitions of PEOPLE in a current
dictionary, we get:

> 1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a
> common interest
> 2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS -- often used in compounds instead of
> persons
> 3 plural : the members of a family or kinship
> 4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special
> class -- often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other
> people
> 5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common
> culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common
> language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a
> politically organized group
> 6 : lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
> 7 : the body of enfranchised citizens of a state

For legal/political/constitutional purposes, #7 is the SINGULAR
and relevant term; the others can go take a hike!

The LEGAL concept of THE PEOPLE is not numerical or even
geographical, but conceptual and political, and THAT definition
is: "the body of enfranchised citizens of the state." IT is a
SINGULAR, collective entity.

YOU want to take what is clearly a definition identical to #5,
where the Const is only using the #7 meaning!

The 2nd Amen doesn't say "the right of the AMERICAN people"!
THEN, by so qualifying "people," it changes it so that it would
mean everyone! THE People is NOT the same as "American people"!

The phrase "the British people" means ALL Brits, even those no
longer IN Britain, and covers ALL individuals, as per Webster's
use, and #5 above.

When a rock band says to a crowd of thousands in Madison Square
Garden, "People of New York, we love you!" one isn't addressing
ALL the persons of New York, but only a PARTIAL segment, as
Webster's mentions, nor the enfranchised body politic that would
be "The People of the City of New York vs. John Doe"! 

But THE PEOPLE, when used constitutionally, is NOT numerical,
and not capable of being made partial.
 
> The right of the people, collectively, or in any portion, to keep and bear
> arms shall not be infringed.

Bogus straw, based on your logical fallacy of equivocation. It's
not "people" but "THE PEOPLE"! Go back to Bouvier to see how it
IS used, not how you can twist it.

> <snip of boring and near unending repetition>

Defaulting the argument because of what you can't address, much
less refute. NO debate points, Sparky.

I repeat because YOU can't disprove, and I want to rub your nose
in it! But I'll let you off this time, as one can find it by
going back in the thread to see what you've ignored.

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