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

Scout wrote:
> 
> "Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Diogenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > Leif Rakur wrote:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > >
> > > >>On 28 Nov 2003 21:37:58 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
> > > >>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>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.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>    So, your saying that the people of this country have the right to
> > > >>join their own military organizations?  Albert Isham and GEE tried to
> > > >>pull this same stuff and it makes as much sense now as it did then.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Leif speaking:  No, I don't say that.  The people, under the Second
> > > > Amendment, have the right, acting as a well regulated state militia,
> > > > to provide their own armed military service.
> > >
> > > They have more right than that. And listening to what the
> anti-federalists
> > > were concerned with and demanding as assurances clearly shows that.
> > >
> > > The Pennsylvania "Dissent," for example:
> > >
> > > ?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."
> >
> > Leif speaking:  If the Pennsylvania Minority had ended the statement
> > after the words "bear arms," their proposal would have been understood
> > as a reference to armed military servce.
> 
> Sorry, but that is bullshit.

Sorry, Sorry Snout, but that is merely your blatant assertion of
your unsubstantiated opinion.

> It is well understood

So why can't you cite all the evidence?

> that bearing arms is NOT
> something limited to rendering military service.

When it is used in context, and not qualified so as to become a
literal usage, it ALWAYS did.

> Of course you chose to ignore the historical context, so I can understand
> how you wouldn't know this.

Of course, when I present the historical context, you piss in
your pants and run and hide:

The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."

In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)

There is NOTHING in the drafting and debating and passage of the
2nd Amen that speaks about "individual gun ownership"
independent of militia service! It's all about state versus
federal control and arming of the militia, and the virtues of
militias versus standing armies, since it's a MILITIA amendment
and NOT a GUN amendment!

Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military
activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages
were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted:

New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."

Rhode Island: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."

Do you think that this last one means that a wealthy Quaker
could pay to have his butler march by his side to tote his rifle
around for him on the battlefield or parade grounds?

Did Quakers have "religious scruples" about "carrying guns" out
to the woods to hunt turkeys? 


How about the very men who debated and passed the 2nd Amen in
Congress?

(All quotes taken verbatim from "Creating the Bill of Rights"
ed. Veit, Rowling, Bickford; Debates in the House of
Representatives, August 1789; pp. 182-4, 198-9)

Rep. Boudinot said, "What dependence can be placed in men who
are conscientious in this respect? Or what justice can there be
in compelling them to bear arms, when, if they are honest men
they would rather die than use them."

By the way, if there is STILL any question about EXACTLY WHAT
"bear arms" means, READ that again:

"what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms"

Compelling them to bear arms! There is no other way to read that
phrase EXCEPT as "compelling them to possibly use firearms to
kill while serving in the militia"! Not "compelling them to
'carry a gun' on their person"... why would Congress want to
compel ANYONE to carry a gun? Need MORE proof?:

"The words 'in person' were added after the word 'arms,' (No
person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms IN
PERSON), and the amendment was adopted."

BEAR ARMS IN PERSON! THAT means, as Madison originally wrote it,
"to render military service in person"! It CAN'T just mean to
"carry a gun in person" as that MAKES NO SENSE! IN PERSON refers
to NOT paying an equivalent to serve in the militia in one's
stead; since IF YOU pay someone else to serve in your place, as
a substitute for YOUR duty, YOU don't have to serve in the
militia (bear arms) IN PERSON!

But the House REJECTED Gerry's call to drop the clause, and
passed it much as Madison wanted. We don't have the Senate
debates on precisely why THEY dropped it, although Gerry's
arguments may have been more successful there, and the Senate
tried, wherever possible, to tighten the wording and shorten the
articles.

But Gerry's fears were PRECISELY that Congress would exclude
individuals:

Rep. Gerry: "Now I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would
give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the
constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously
scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Prevent them from "carrying guns"? Congress saying to Quakers,
"Sorry, but since you are religiously scrupulous about bearing
arms, YOU are thus to be prevented from using a hunting rifle to
shoot turkeys!"? And then go BEYOND sects KNOWN to be against
military service (e.g. Quakers, Moravians), making the same
argument to Catholics or Jews, to prevent THEM from hunting
also?  HA! 

NO, PREVENT THEM FROM SERVING in the militia... from BEARING
ARMS!

Gerry continuing, "Now, if we give a discretionary power to
exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we
may as well make no provision on this head;" for this reason he
wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons
belonging to a religious sect, scrupulous of bearing arms.

[Notice here that Gerry is here EQUATING "militia duty" with
"bearing arms"! "Exclude those from militia duty who have
religious scruples" = "prevent... those religiously
scrupulous... from bearing arms"! There IS no other way to read
it! They mean the same thing!]

Rep. Jackson: Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the
constitution secured an equivalent, for this reason he moved to
amend the clause... Was willing to accommodate; he thought the
expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person, upon
paying an equivalent.

Rep. Sherman: "It is well known that those who are religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting
substitutes or paying an equivalent; many of them would rather
die than do either one or the other."

(Does anyone think that all this talk about "bearing arms" has
anything here to do with merely "carrying guns"? THIS is what
the Congress debated about -- militia service ONLY -- NOT
hunting, or personal self defense! Does anyone think Quakers or
Moravians would "rather die" than "carry" a hunting gun to get a
turkey, or that they'd "rather die" than to "pay an equivalent"
to "carry" that hunting gun around for them and use it in their
stead to kill turkeys for them because THEY have religious
scruples about "carrying guns"!)

Rep. Vining: Hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it
stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to
COMPEL a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the
government, was THE SAME as if the person HIMSELF TURNED OUT TO
FIGHT. [emphasis added]

("The person himself turned out to fight." THAT is what ALL
these persons UNDERSTOOD "bearing arms" to mean! It is
inconceivable to me that anyone reading these exchanges, that
use the term "bearing arms" to ONLY mean militia service,
particularly someone who'd never seen the term "bear arms"
before, could even SUGGEST that the term means anything else --
such as "carry a gun" -- given the context and usage! Just TRY
replacing "bear arms" in these quotes with "carry guns" and see
how ludicrous it sounds!)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning
"to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter,
"OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be
engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use
of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to
all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from
1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id"

In Maryland in August 1776, Rezin Hammond "told the people
present that every man that bore arms in defense of his country
had a right to vote, and if they were allowed no vote they had
no right to bear arms." In this equation, arming bearing and
enfranchisement went hand in hand; that is, military service and
enfranchisement were linked rights. In this case, "bear arms"
had an explicit, military meaning. (From JK Rowland)

There are probably more recorded instances of non-white snow
than EVER there could be of non-military uses of "bear arms"
(NOT bear guns, or carry arms!) in pre-1800 America. Go to:
http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html ; unless you think
Rowland is purposely hiding a raft of non-military cites, the
evidence is clear:

CONCLUSION 
"BEAR ARMS" WAS AN UNAMBIGUOUS MILITARY CONCEPT 

Summary. This paper finds that the overwhelming preponderance of
usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public
discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly
military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to
stand for military service, especially in the militia. Such
usage represented a remarkable continuity over nearly two
centuries, so much so that the phrase came to represent standard
legal terminology describing military obligation, capability,
exemption (especially for pacifists), service, and, after 1776,
constitutional right. The 300 examples represent thousands of
likely repetitions of the phrase in its military meaning,
reinforcing the definition in the minds of Americans. Of all
these usages, the "right to bear arms" formulation was the most
ambiguous because the constitutional clauses in which it
occurred often lacked sufficient context to define its meaning
clearly. However, at least one use of the phrase in Maryland in
1776 was explicitly military. Legislative drafters did sometimes
use literal language to define specific legal responsibilities
for use of weapons under the militia acts. But they employed
"bear arms" only occasionally in a literal sense, and the linked
words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military
use of weapons, or to prohibit their use. The few cases of
ambiguous meaning are only a tiny fraction of the majority and
cannot be the basis for generalizing about "bear arms"— they
were the exception, not the rule of early American legal
terminology. Therefore, this overwhelming pattern of military
context gives great weight to the conclusion that the "right to
... bear arms" in the Second Amendment had an exclusively
military meaning to the drafters and ratifiers and probable
understanding to at least a large portion of the American
population. (JK Rowland)

Get educated! Here's HUNDREDS of pre-1790 cites of the term
"bear arms" that clearly have military reference, along with
comparison to other separate uses by "carry arms" and the like.
http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
Read Rowland's essay and tell me he and I are wrong! 

If there are HUNDREDS, or even thousands, of military uses in
context, and ONE or even two questionable and probably erroneous
uses pop up, do we weigh the questionable and aberrant .001%
equally with the 99.999% that show consistent legal, official,
educated, STANDARD usage?

In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was
still understood:

Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)

"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no
citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided
he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we
know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we
must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th
section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms.  A
man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his
rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said
of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol
concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."

Why not look at what was said about the terms from late 19th
century through early 20th century:

"see also English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1872)("The word
'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the
United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and
the word is used in its military sense."); Hill v. Georgia, 53
Ga. 472, 475 (1874) ("the language of the constitution of this
state as well as that of the United States guarantees only the
right to keep and bear the 'arms' necessary for a militiaman");
State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, 373 (1891) ("in regard to the
kind of arms protected by the [Second A]mendment, it must be
held to refer to weapons of warfare to be used by the militia");
City of Salina v. Blaksly, 72 Kan. 230, 233 (1905) (both U.S.
and Kansas Constitutions "appl[y] only to the right to bear arms
as a member of the state militia, or some other military
organization provided by law"); Ex parte Thomas, 21 Okla. 770
(1908) (interpreting Oklahoma Constitution) ("As the object for
which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general
and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for
their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is
secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized
warfare"); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 651-52 (1924) ("An
examination of the numerous authorities in various states will
show that the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by a
state constitutional provision similar to the federal amendment
refers only to the bearing of arms by the citizens in defense of
a common cause"); cf. Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the
Law of Statutory Crimes 497 (1873) (Second Amendment "protects
only the right to 'keep' such 'arms' as are used for purposes of
war . . . since such, only, are properly known by the name of
'arms;' and such, only, are adapted to promote 'the security of
a free State.' In like manner, the right to 'bear' arms refers
merely to the military way of using them. . . .); Lucilius
Emery, The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 28 Harv.
L. Rev. 473, 476 (1915) ("The single individual or the
unorganized crowd, in carrying weapons, is not spoken of or
thought of as 'bearing arms.'").

Since the term comes directly from the Latin "arma ferre" (and
has no singular; there is no "bear arm"!) how
could it mean guns, since it preceded "guns" by over a thousand
years?

Oh, you want us to read "arms" out of context of the term of art
"bear arms" and just mentally translate THAT bogus trick AS
"guns" eh? No dice.

Even the word "arms" alone always included flags, ensigns,
tents, wagons, siege equipment, engineering tools, drums, etc.
all the equipage of the entire militia. But it's NOT just arms
but BEAR ARMS and THAT phrase has a whole history and meaning
that was separate from the two words making it up:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning
"to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter,
"OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be
engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use
of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to
all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from
1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id"


The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.

Further to that, here's what historian Gary Wills has to say:
(http://www.potomac-inc.org/garwills.html)

Bear Arms. To bear arms is, in itself, a military term. One does
not bear arms against a rabbit. The phrase simply translates the
Latin arma ferre. The infinitive ferre, to bear, comes from the
verb fero. The plural noun arma explains the plural usage in
English ("arms"). One does not "bear arm." Latin arma is,
etymologically, war "equipment," and it has no singular forms."
16 By legal and other channels, arma ferre entered deeply into
the European language of war. To bear arms is such a synonym for
waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war "just-borne
arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." 17 Even outside the
phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use alone echoes Latin
phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad
arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere),
to lay down arms (arma ponere). "Arms" is a profession that one
brother chooses as another chooses law or the church. An issue
undergoes the arbitrament of arms. In the singular, English
"arm" often means a component of military force (the artillery
arm, the cavalry arm). 

Thus "arms" in English, as in Latin, is not restricted to the
meaning "guns." The Romans had no guns; and they did not limit
arma to projectile weapons (spears, arrows). It meant weaponry
in general, everything from swords to siege instruments— but
especially shields. That is why the heraldic use of "arms" in
English (the very case Stephen Halbrook invokes) refers to
shields "coated" (covered) with blazonry...

(Patrick Henry tells us, the militia's arms include
"regimentals, etc." flags, ensigns, engineering tools, siege
apparatus, and other "accoutrements of war."
 
And "bear" can be a large land animal, and "arms" can be limbs,
so "bear arms" can be "the limbs of a large land mammal" and
THAT is the "logic" and lunacy of your method!

But it's not just "arms," loon! It's BEAR ARMS, ONE CONNECTED
PHRASE with its own consistent history!

"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall
themselves by their Hands." Declaration of Independence

Did the King make Americans merely "carry guns"? What did
TJ MEAN by "bear Arms"? IT meant forcing them "to render
military service in person," JUST the way Madison used the term!

Want HUNDREDS more examples of the "clear language" in the 2nd
Amen as used up to 1790? Go to:
http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html

For a sample of the piece:

Deconstruction of the Second Amendment.

"Compounding the differences between the two approaches to the
Second Amendment is the practice of deconstructing its language,
of stripping specific words ("keep," "bear," "arms," and
"militia") from their 18th century phraseology (especially "keep
arms" and "bear arms") and examining their individual meanings
in a literal sense, sometimes explicitly but often as an
unexamined or buried assumption. Steven Halbrook is the most
forthright in his definition of "bear arms." He argues that "the
terms, 'bear arms' meant simply to carry arms," but this
conclusion is based on very little 18th century evidence and
without any recognition that "the terms" could have been a
single term used in the 18th century in a figurative sense that
would give an entirely different understanding of the Second
Amendment. Some academic historians have also assumed an
equivalence between "bear" and "carry" arms, which serves only
to confuse the issue. Writers taking this approach ignore, or
are not familiar with, the authoritative conclusions of the
Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, which
declares that "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to
serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" and that "to
bear arms against" means "to be engaged in hostilities with."
Therefore, to insist on a literal "plain reading" of the text of
the Second Amendment despite specific evidence to the contrary
is a form of constitutional literalism that, however legitimate
for extrapolation of the meaning of provisions of the
Constitution and Bill of Rights for today, may do an injustice
to the 18th century meaning of those same provisions."


"Bearing arms" is not about "carrying arms" or "kinds or arms"
or "bearing guns" but BEARING ARMS: "to serve as a soldier,
engage in hostilities with" (OED), or "to render military
service in person" (Madison). 

One can be "bearing arms" against the enemy by driving or
repairing a truck, or cooking meals, as long as one is 'serving
as a soldier, doing military service' while doing those
activities, particularly if the forces are at war with each
other. It doesn't mean or require that one is packing a pistol,
and certainly doesn't mean that one is carrying ARMS, ALL the
equipage of WAR on one's person.

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