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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:49:02 GMT, Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>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)
>

   Garry Wills is a known gun control supporter.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel031601.shtml

Faith of Our Fathers
What the Second Amendment means.


Mr. Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, & author
of 
The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century
March 16, 2001 9:35 a.m.

     Begin excerpt:
 
That someone as smart as Wills can make such preposterous arguments 
shows how desperate are the emotional needs, in some quarters, to make

the Second Amendment disappear by sheer will-power. Garry Wills
despises 
"the sordid race of gunsels" and "gun fetishists" whose mere ownership

of defensive firearms makes them "traitors, enemies of their own
patriae
." [Garry Wills, "Gun Rules...or Worldwide Gun Control?" Phil. Inq.,
May 
17, 1981, page 8E; Garry Wills, "John Lennon's War," Chi. Sun-Times, 
Dec. 12, 1980.] 

Wills' problem is he believes, as he wrote in 1981, "Every civilized 
society must disarm its citizens against each other" Unfortunately for

Wills, he lives in a nation whose Supreme Court has declared that the 
right to keep and bear arms "is found wherever civilization exists." [
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876).]



>http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm
>
Rakove
      Uses:
     
 LOIS G. SCHWOERER, THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, 1689, at 295 (1981).

      Daniel A. Farber, Disarmed by Time: The Second Amendment and the
Failure of Originalism, 76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 167 
(2000)

      Michael C. Dorf, What Does the Second Amendment Mean Today?, 76
CHI.-KENT L. REV. 291 (2000).

MICHAEL A. BELLESILES, ARMING AMERICA: THE ORIGINS OF A NATIONAL GUN 
CULTURE 144-46 (2000).

Michael A. Bellesiles, The Origins of Gun Culture in the United
States, 1760-1865, 83 J. AM. 
HIST. 425 (1996).