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

 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.

Sorry, but since it's quite clear that one could bear arms for purposed
other than to render armed military service, claiming that an unspecified
use of bear arms automatically would mean nothing but rendering armed
military service is utterly unsupported. To be understood would require that
term to mean NOTHING else. Clearly it does mean other things and as such no
such understanding can exist.

Further let's say for a moment you're right, and bearing arms is something
that one can only do in the context of rendering military service. It still
isn't going to eliminate the people's right to keep arms.....OUTSIDE of any
military context, because "keeping arms" is NOT something that is
"understood" to apply only to a military context. As such, you're still left
with what you hate. People having guns and the right to do so.

Further, what you are asserting is that by having the right to bear
arms....I can NOT be denied military service. The government can NOT refuse
my admission to the US military, The National Guard, or any other
military/militia organization I chose to join. As such, it's clear that even
in YOUR opinion the federal government IS in violation of the 2nd Amendment
because this right ( as you have set it forth) has been infringed upon.

Except that it's all a moot point since "bearing arms" isn't something
limited to a military context....as shown by the source given you.