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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:03:31 GMT, Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Diogenes wrote:
>> 
>> Leif Rakur wrote:
>> > "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>> >>"Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>
>> >>>"Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >>
>> >>>>"Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>"Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>>>
>> >> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >>
>> >>>>>>"Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Pat Hines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>
>> >> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>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
>> >> bear
>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>>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
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >> "carry"
>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>rather than "bear," since the phrase "bear arms" referred
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >> specifically
>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>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](jc0162))
>> >>
>> >>>>>>Do you think that "bear arms" is an exclusively military function in
>> >>>>>
>> >> this
>> >>
>> >>>>>>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
>> >>>>>
>> >> 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 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 of
>> >>
>> >>>>>>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
>> >>>>>
>> >> military
>> >>
>> >>>>>>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
>> >>>>>
>> >> any
>> >>
>> >>>>>>armed military function. As anyone with even a basic knowledge of
>> >>>>>
>> >> English 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>On the contrary, I answered your question. I showed that bearing arms is
>> >>>
>> >> NOT
>> >>
>> >>>>exclusive to an arm military function, and as such your assertion that
>> >>>>bearing arms is limited to an armed military function is without merit.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Further, the right comes in two parts, and I don't think you can make
>> >>>
>> >> any
>> >>
>> >>>>kind of case that keeping arms is something only the military can do.
>> >>>
>> >>>Leif speaking:  No, Scout, you did not answer my question, which was:
>> >>>
>> >>>"Do you think "bear arms" means "carry arms" in this passage from the
>> >>>Journals of the Continental Congress?":
>> >>
>> >>Ok, then let's answer the question.
>> >>
>> >>Yes, they certainly must be large/strong enough to carry the arms they would
>> >>bear, before they could do so.
>> >
>> >
>> > Leif speaking:  Do you really believe that "healthy, robust" youths of
>> > 15 through 17 years of age wouldn't be able to carry arms?  What they
>> > weren't considered capable of doing was "bearing arms"
>> 
>> Poppycock. I'll bet most of them were better shots and better hunters than
>> you are.
>
>Thanks for proving his point! They likely WERE adept at "using
>arms," and were physically able to "carry arms," and were likely
>"in possession of arms" as well, but they were LEGALLY kept from
>"bearing arms" because THAT phrase had NOTHING to do with
>"carrying guns" but rather "rendering military service in
>person"!
> 
>> > (engaging in
>> > armed military service) until they were of "sufficient age."
>> >
>> >>Further I note that nothing in this passage contests the documented fact
>> >>that one could bear arms for purposes other than rendering military service.
>> >
>> >
>> > Leif continuing:  You might provide a few examples quoted from the
>> > 18th century where "bear arms" clearly has a literal meaning of "carry
>> > arms" without any added explanatory words to make the term literal.
>> > When used without such extra words, it  invariably had the figurative
>> > military  meaning ("render armed military service"), as in the
>> > Continental Congress example I provided earlier, and as in the Second
>> > Amendment.
>> 
>> Sure. Pennsylvania's "Dissent" to the Constitution demanding a declaration
>> of rights.
>> 
>> "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."
>
>YOU need a good lesson in what this "Dissent" was really all
>about!:
>
>Ha! the old hokum "Pennsylvania Minority Report!"
>
>Well, since no such language like it appears in the BoR, clearly
>this is NOT what Madison and the gang wanted to say! There were
>enough other examples that WERE closer to what was eventually
>written, that if this one piece never existed it wouldn't have
>made a difference. That it was derided by such as Noah Webster,
>and that the lone author (it was never debated item by item or
>voted on item by item; the other printed works contradict it and
>the other authors who contributed to the compilation, so we
>don't know exactly what the "official" version of this
>unofficial pastiche was), who only wanted to sink the federalist
>plans, would be held up by Madison as the source of HIS agenda
>(to sink the anti-fed plans to hold a new const convention) is
>absurd.
>
>In the entire history of the universe of the late 18th Century,
>this is the ONE AND ONLY example of THIS particular usage the
>hoplophiles have EVER dug up! Why is that? Why does DY and the
>claque ignore the HUNDREDS of consistent and RATIFIED LEGAL
>USES, and hold up as holy grail ONE, REJECTED draft by ONE CRANK
>whose only purpose was to scuttle the Constitution process? IF
>this were common usage, why are there NO OTHER similar uses?
>NONE! EVERY debated, passed, ratified OFFICIAL document that
>uses "bear arms" through the pre-Civil War era has only ONE
>meaning, and HUNTING is NOT EVER referred to!
>
>DY has not addressed my serious challenges to the validity of
>this, but has side-stepped with irrelevant factoids, nor has he
>refuted the comments of Wills and others that I presented.
>
   Krulick would attempt to explain them away just like he does with
any other material that counters any of his assertions.

>What slim reeds these disingenuous hoplophiles build their cases
>on!
>
>It is one aberrant and questionable "fifth-leg"! Look at
>how a REAL historian described the process,
>Pulitzer-Prize-winner Gary Wills
>(http://www.potomac-inc.org/garwills.html):
>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/FinkelmanChicago.htm
Finkleman 
      Uses:

 Himself:  Paul Finkelman, Antifederalists: The Loyal Opposition and
the American Constitution, 70 CORNELL L. REV. 182 (1984) 
     
Michael A. Bellesiles, Gun Laws In Early America: The Regulation of
Firearms Ownership, 1607-1794, 16 LAW & HIST. REV. 567, 587 (1998

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

Michael A. Bellesiles, The Origins of Gun Culture in the United
States, 1760-1865, 1996 J. Am. Hist. 425, 429

>
>http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm
Uviller
      Uses:

Michael A. Bellesiles, Gun Laws in Early America: The Regulation of
Firearms Ownership, 1607-1794, 16 LAW & HIST. REV. 567, 572 (1998).

Robert J. Spitzer, Door No. 1: Muskets? Or Door No. 2: 
Free Speech?, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Sept. 19, 1997, at 19

 Jack N. Rakove in The Origins of Judicial 
Review: A Plea for New Contexts, 49 STAN. L. REV. 1031, 1038, 1040-41,

1047-48, 1050 (1997).

Jack N. Rakove, The Original Intention of Original 
Understanding, 13 CONST. COMMENTARY 159 (1996).

Jack N. Rakove, The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage 
of Originalism, 76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 103, 105, 144 (2000).     

LOIS G. SCHWOERER, "NO STANDING ARMIES!" THE ANTIARMY IDEOLOGY IN 
SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND 10 (1974).

LOIS G. SCHWOERER, THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, 1689, 
at 289-90 (1981).

Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. 
DAVIS L. REV. 309 (1998).

Carl T. Bogus, The History 
and Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship: A Primer, 76 CHI.-KENT
L. 
REV. 3, 19-21 (2000).