ACLU - Are no lovers of freedom or liberty
aaron greewnood
is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing
so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
political speech.
How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
Why does the ACLU lie.
Could it be that todays members no longer love the US or our
history or culture? Who are these people in todays ACLU and
are they members of special interest groups that we should be
aware of? Who is the ACLU, who the Far-King A are they?
I think they are becomming the enemy of freedom and liberty.
The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
the Second Ammendment only applied to fighting the British
during the Revolutionary War. Revisionists for sure. One
wonder how much influence leftist groups like feminists have
had on the ACLU and moving away from American values of
individual responsibilty, freedom and liberty. It may be
time to start thinking about a second revolution. I have
some quotes from some Americans on this issue. It is quite
clear the ACLU is enganged in the personal politics or their
members and not loyalty to the Bill of Rights.
Read the quotes from the following and decide for yourself it the
ACLU is dishonest.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or
overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln
I love this quote from Abraham Lincoln. My support for the Second
Amendment is summed up in this quote. As we well know Lincoln is
in agreement with the Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other Founders.
As well as others in our history to include the present time. Maybe
we should put the ACLU on notice that we will not tolerate our Rights
being "fucked" with and that the wisdom of Linclon is as meaningful
today as it was a 100 years ago.
-"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves
-back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
-manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed
-out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which
-it was passed."
- --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
-"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
-for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
-resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"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."
- The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,
proposed Sept. 25, 1789; ratified Dec. 15, 1791.
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty,
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
- Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
"A constitutional right that cannot be practiced is not right at all;
it's an illusion."
- Senate Majority leader George Mitchell (D Me), January 22,
1993, in a speech to NARAL concerning abortion, but can be
used for any constitutional right.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrrany in
government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee
against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which
now appears remote to in America, that historically has proven to be
always possible."
- Senator Hubert Humphrey
"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people
of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms"
- Alexander Hamilton
"The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong
moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will
generally, even if these are successful in the first instince, enable
the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Chief Justice Joseph Story
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword
because the whole body of the people are armed."
- Noah Webster
"...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and
preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would
ensue were [law-abiding citizens] deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept,
and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, as well as its interpretation by every major
commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratifi-
cation, indicates that what is protected is an individual right
of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
- Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,
97th Congress, Second Session ( February 1982 )
"Americans have a right and advantage of being armed -- unlike
the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid
to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.
"The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense .... And ... these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time."
- Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. v. Miller (1939).
"The states cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision
out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms
so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource
for maintaining public security, and disable the people from
performing their duty to general government."
- Supreme Court of the U.S., Presser v. Illinois (1886).
"... 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in
select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the
Constitution is ordained, and established by 'the people of the
the U.S.' The Second Amendment protects the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms ...."
- Supreme Court of the U.S., U.S. v. Uerdugo-Uriquidez (1990).
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be
infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of
a free country ...."
- James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
"To disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way
to enslave them ...."
- George Mason ( Framer of the Declaration of Rights, Virginia,
1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights )
3 Elliot, Debate at 380.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms ... The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in
Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover, ed., 1939).
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;
as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme
power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;
because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute
a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on
any pretense, raised in the United States."
- Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles
of the Federal Constitution" (1787), in Pamphlets on the
Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when
young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of
Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed
the Bill of Rights.
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who
is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification
of the U.S. Constitution.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is
that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights
of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who
are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ...."
- Samuel Adams, "Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements."
- Thomas Jefferson, from the Virginia Constitution, Third Draft
"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of
legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of
examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they
cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must
sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the
1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939
period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in
1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable
failure of gun laws to control serious crime."
- Orrin Hatch, 1982 Senate Report
--
Quotes first posted by:
>Stephen Burr | "Didn't you wonder why you kept getting checks
>Georgia Tech, | for doing absolutely nothing?" - Bart Simpson
>Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | "I thought it was because the Democrats were
>gt6...@prism.gatech.edu | back in power again." - Grandpa Simpson
Robert J. Kolker
Just a brief question: would you support the right of a citizen to keep
and tactical nuke in his house? Or a working Howitzer in his back yard?
Or a gross of fragmentation grenades in his store-room?
The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
and present danger to one's neighbors? Should I be held hostage to the in-
competance of my neighbor, the one with enough potential energy to raze
the block I live on?
Conan the Libertarian
--
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
JIM GRAHAM
>The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
>is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing
>so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
>can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
>political speech.
>
>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>Why does the ACLU lie.
>Could it be that todays members no longer love the US or our
>history or culture? Who are these people in todays ACLU and
>are they members of special interest groups that we should be
>aware of? Who is the ACLU, who the Far-King A are they?
>I think they are becomming the enemy of freedom and liberty.
>
>The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
Don't worry, there are those fully prepared with historical facts to
fight their lies.
>the Second Ammendment only applied to fighting the British
>during the Revolutionary War. Revisionists for sure. One
>wonder how much influence leftist groups like feminists have
>had on the ACLU and moving away from American values of
Eventually, it's inevitable.
>individual responsibilty, freedom and liberty. It may be
>time to start thinking about a second revolution. I have
>some quotes from some Americans on this issue. It is quite
>clear the ACLU is enganged in the personal politics or their
>members and not loyalty to the Bill of Rights.
>
>Read the quotes from the following and decide for yourself it the
>ACLU is dishonest.
>
> "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
> inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
> government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
> amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or
> overthrow it."
> Abraham Lincoln
>
>I love this quote from Abraham Lincoln. My support for the Second
>Amendment is summed up in this quote. As we well know Lincoln is
>in agreement with the Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other Founders.
>As well as others in our history to include the present time. Maybe
>we should put the ACLU on notice that we will not tolerate our Rights
I agree!
>being "fucked" with and that the wisdom of Linclon is as meaningful
>today as it was a 100 years ago.
>
>-"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves
>-back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
>-manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed
>-out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which
The ACLU will hate this one. It basically says that original intent
>
Jim Graham
--
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
Note to the signature-impaired: This is not an NRA endorsement.
Jim Graham
gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Christopher Morton
> Mr. Greenwood,
>
> Just a brief question: would you support the right of a citizen to keep
> and tactical nuke in his house? Or a working Howitzer in his back yard?
> Or a gross of fragmentation grenades in his store-room?
(What is this, the 10,000th time this has been asked here?)
Leave a .50 cal. watercooled machinegun and 20,000 rounds of ammo unattended
and uncared for in the weather.
Leave explosive munitions in the same conditions.
Now tell me the DIRECT hazard from each.
I propose that you learn the difference between an arm and a munition.
> The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
> defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
> safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
> and present danger to one's neighbors? Should I be held hostage to the in-
> competance of my neighbor, the one with enough potential energy to raze
> the block I live on?
>
What danger by itself does my M1 Garand present to you? Without the
conscious intervention of myself or another, NONE.
When I start storing 4.2" white phosphorus shells next door to you, you might
have a point. Until then, you're just reflecting a regrettably widespread
ignorance of firearms.
--
===================================================================
Read my lips, no new Haitians - Bill "Jethro" Clinton
===================================================================
Stilt Man
aaron greewnood <star...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote:
>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>Why does the ACLU lie.
Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
Let me check . . .
Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
Don't breath, be oblivious!
Lee S Wilfinger
JIM GRAHAM <gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes...
>>
>>The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
>
>Don't worry, there are those fully prepared with historical facts to
>fight their lies.
True. Still, it remains to be seen how well those with the facts will
be able to spread their information. If the media doesn't choose to
sell ad space to pro-gun groups, we're in trouble.
-Lee
Keith Emmen
: The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
: defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
: safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
: and present danger to one's neighbors?
The possesion of arms for self-defense becomes an issue of safety when
the possesor uses the arms in an unsafe manner. I can't think of an
example when mere possesion of guns becomes a clear and present danger
to anyone. The only time "possesion" becomes a "clear and present
danger" is if the possesed substance is unstable enough that it can
harm someone with no human intervention. The key is that the human
must *do* something for a weapon to be a threat.
You mentioned the scenario of your neighbor having a tactical nuke.
I've got news for you. I have a neighbor with a tactical nuke. As
the matter of fact he has a *lot* of them. He keeps them at Mountain
Home Air Force Base, Idaho Nuclear Engineering Labs, and several other
places in fairly close proximity to me. How safe do I feel? I guess I
don't feel like I need to build a bomb shelter. If some of those nukes
were in the hands of law-abiding citizens, I still wouldn't be building
a shelter. Actually, with the direction this country is moving, I feel
more of a threat coming from the government than from my gun-owning
neighbors. There are tactical nukes all over this country. How safe
do you feel?
: Conan the Libertarian
I thought one of the characteristics of libertarians was to leave others
alone to enjoy their rights. Most libertarians wouldn't try to remove
my rights unless I was violating theirs.
Keith (also libertarian) Emmen
Bill Meyers
[ ... ]
>Just a brief question: would you support the right of a citizen to keep
>and tactical nuke in his house? Or a working Howitzer in his back yard?
>Or a gross of fragmentation grenades in his store-room?
>
>The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
>defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
>safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
>and present danger to one's neighbors? Should I be held hostage to the in-
This isn't about your neighbors asking you to cool it.
It's about whether the G-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t can decide.
>Conan the Libertarian
^^^^^^^^^^^
No sh*t? Have you read the party platform lately?
BTW, I support Salman Rushdie's right to keep and bear
a private nuke, for self-defense against Iran ... :-)
Robert J. Kolker
>The possesion of arms for self-defense becomes an issue of safety when
>the possesor uses the arms in an unsafe manner. I can't think of an
>example when mere possesion of guns becomes a clear and present danger
>to anyone. The only time "possesion" becomes a "clear and present
>danger" is if the possesed substance is unstable enough that it can
>harm someone with no human intervention. The key is that the human
>must *do* something for a weapon to be a threat.
In the case of any high energy nuclear device that uses uranium
or plutoniam, the issue of (1) radioactive leakage and (2)
appropriate safegaurds to prevent triggering naturally emerge.
Hell, if someone were storing nitroglycerine, I think I have the
right to know if they are taking the proper precautions against
sudden rises in termperature or jiggling.
Your insistence that the danger arise from purely accidental factors
rather than human intervention is unreasonable. What about human
stupidity. That is as much a force of nature as a tornado. Ask the
people near Chernobyl whether an earthquake or drunken technicians
are more dangerous.
>You mentioned the scenario of your neighbor having a tactical nuke.
>I've got news for you. I have a neighbor with a tactical nuke. As
>the matter of fact he has a *lot* of them. He keeps them at Mountain
>Home Air Force Base, Idaho Nuclear Engineering Labs, and several other
>places in fairly close proximity to me. How safe do I feel? I guess I
>don't feel like I need to build a bomb shelter. If some of those nukes
>were in the hands of law-abiding citizens, I still wouldn't be building
>a shelter. Actually, with the direction this country is moving, I feel
>more of a threat coming from the government than from my gun-owning
>neighbors. There are tactical nukes all over this country. How safe
>do you feel?
You and I share the same distrust of government. However I was
raisinq a question of safety. The same question could just as
easily arise in an anarchic social order. THe generic question
is to what extent are we free to impose hazards on our neighbors?
There is a matter of degree here. We permit the shipping of volatile
petrol over the public highways. All we ask in exchange is a reasonable
assurance that the tank vehicles don't leak and the drivers know
what they are doing. This is not a radical attack on liberty as much
as it is a defense against the incompetence of our neighbors.
>: Conan the Libertarian
>I thought one of the characteristics of libertarians was to leave others
>alone to enjoy their rights. Most libertarians wouldn't try to remove
>my rights unless I was violating theirs.
The excessive hazard (excessive is a matter of discussion and debate)
that A inadvertantly imposes on B at some point ceases to be a
right and becomes defacto aggression. I claim it is *my* right not
to be put in danger of life and limb by blantant negligence and
incompetence which exists both in the prive sector and government.
The problem is when government does it we have been betrayed by
the latter who are supposed to protect us from the former.
PS. If my neighbor really must have a nuke, (I know not what for)
is it unreasonable to ask him to cart it to the middle of a desert
far from human habitation? Good geiger counters make good neighbors.
>Keith (also libertarian) Emmen
David Veal
>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
>aaron greewnood <star...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote:
>>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>>Why does the ACLU lie.
>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>Let me check . . .
>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
>What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
*Cough*. Organizing and training as an armed body tends to
be rather ... illegal ... in most places.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal University of Tennessee, Division of Continuing Education
E-Mail: ve...@gateway.ce.utk.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Kolker
......snip....
>What danger by itself does my M1 Garand present to you? Without the
>conscious intervention of myself or another, NONE.
.303 @ home. The points I rased pertained to safety, not the
RTKBA.
>When I start storing 4.2" white phosphorus shells next door to you, you might
>have a point. Until then, you're just reflecting a regrettably widespread
>ignorance of firearms.
We are in violent agreement. You are bringing up exactly the point
I was trying to make. I will say it again for the record. I have
no argument with people who want weapons for self defense or sport
or for the joy of collecting them. For the record also, I know the
difference between a single-shot, semi-automatic, and automatic
rifle. Guns per se do not bother me any more than automobiles
per se, even theough the misuse of either can bring blood &
death.
>--
>===================================================================
> Read my lips, no new Haitians - Bill "Jethro" Clinton
>===================================================================
Robert J. Kolker
> No sh*t? Have you read the party platform lately?
Not a party member. Sorry.
> BTW, I support Salman Rushdie's right to keep and bear
> a private nuke, for self-defense against Iran ... :-)
So do I, but not next door to me.
Jacqueline U. Robertson
>>The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
>>is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing
>>so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
>>can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
>>political speech.
Look at the bright side: by advocating repeal, at LEAST there is an admission
if what the second guarantees. This is a LOT better grounds to fight on.
Look at how our fourth amendment rights have been stripped by the more
circuitious approach that has been taken by the DEA and the courts.
James A. Robertson
<note that I am posting through my wife's account. I don't claim to speak for
her>
aaron greewnood
Mark Langenbahn - SE Southern Ohio <ma...@f22.Central.Sun.COM> wrote:
-"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."
- - The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,
- proposed Sept. 25, 1789; ratified Dec. 15, 1791.
-I think the new interpretation that the ACLU is going to use is that
-the second amendmend protects us from the government going around and
-cutting off our arms. Also, we are given the right to wear short sleeve
-shirts if we want. Note that "bare" was misspelled. :)
-
-Lets think up some creative ways to re-interpret the 1st amendment!!!
>
Is the ACLU a tax free organization? If they engange in politics can we
go after their tax free status?
ajg
Mitchell Berg
> The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
> is to go for repeal.
Not technically true - they can favor encumbering the right to the point where
it's meaningless - sort of like our protections against unreasonable search and
seizure are becoming...
> They put other Rights in danger by doing
> so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
> can go after the First.
Happens all the time. From the left a n d the right.
> The argument can be made it ONLY covers
> political speech.
Although several precedents reject that claim. (no, Furlong, I can't cite them.
So sue me.)
>
> How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
> Why does the ACLU lie.
Just a second here. First of all, the ACLU isn't necessarily the devil in this
situation. They are (see related posting elsewhere in todays news) in many
places deadlocked on the issue, with a significant number of their membership
favoring a true, civil-liberties approach to the 2A.
As for those members of the ACLU that wish to attack the 2a and RKBA - well, the
first amendment protects them, too.
> Could it be that todays members no longer love the US or our
> history or culture?
Hang on. I'm not a member, and I've been just as outraged as any of you at some
of the causes they've championed.
But whacking on the ACLU is just as pointless and misguided as demonizing the
media. The fact that some, or even the majority, of both institutions may oppose
our [correct] interpretation of the 2A doesn't mean that they're unamerican -
that they don't love our country or its culture. They're just wrong.
It is, rather, up to us to refute them, point by point. We, the RKBA crowd,
must meet them:
1) With the strength of our logic (we don't need to lie or distort -
the uncooked figures support us.) Know your facts. Never
back down.
2) With our legal precedent - no anti-2a arguments surfaced until
this century, and they are based on incorrect/false
interpretations of our law. Look - your list of quotes is
an indication that RKBA is a right generally held by the people,
as in "look at the ninth amendment too!"
3) With the strength of our numbers - organizing and voting down
every anti-RKBA measure we can. Defeating and recalling
Anti-RKBA legislators. Packing public hearings, and providing
the infrastructure (information, schedule dissemination) to do
so. L e a r n i n g the issue, and speaking/testifying at
public hearings a r t i c u l a t e l y. (Its YOUR right, too.
And don't give me any bullshit about stage fright. You speak
below about staging a second revolution (armed?) but you can't
go in front of a dinky little microphone in front of a crowd of
onlookers? Suck up your guts!)
4) With our dollars - boycott every company that donates to HCI
and their ilk. (The list has been posted on this net. Research,
find more offending companies, and GET THE WORD OUT!) Encourage
(verbally, and in writing, as well as with your business) any
companies that are pro-RKBA, and encourage your friends/
relatives to patronize them too.
5) With your brain - buy a gun, LEARN TO USE IT, learn not
to shoot yourself in the foot literally as well as rhetorically.
BE one of that vast majority we're always talking about - the
law-abiding, safety-conscious shooter that must be the background
of this movement.
This, rather than attacking the "americanism" of our opponents, is how we will
win.
> Who are these people in todays ACLU and
> are they members of special interest groups that we should be
> aware of?
Ironic - the ACLU's big screed is guarding AGAINST a return to McCarthyism. What
you just said sounded like something from a House Unamerican Activities Committee
transcript - speaking of violations of the constitution!
Of *course* they are members of other special interest groups. Just as you may
be a member of both the ACLU and the NRA - pay your dues to both and find out.
Either way, it's their right, as well as yours.
> Who is the ACLU, who the Far-King A are they?
Citizens. Just like the media, and you, and me. (Far-King? What the Flock does
that mean? I feel like I stepped into an A-Team episode. Holy Spit.)
> I think they are becomming the enemy of freedom and liberty.
No. They disagree with us. It is up to us to refute them, or, better yet,
change their minds. (It does happen, you know...) Either way, that IS the
American way.
>
> The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
> the Second Ammendment only applied to fighting the British
> during the Revolutionary War.
Have they? I've heard that that's a State ACLU project. At any rate, they're
exercising their First Amendment right.
EXERCISE YOURS! Write the editor of the paper carrying the ad. (a SHORT, to the
point letter). Organize a march on ACLU HQ (and it'd better be a peaceful one,
or you'll be proving the antis point. Disinvite any of your violent friends...)
Organize a boycott. PUBLICIZE IT! We have the same rights they do!
> Revisionists for sure. One
> wonder how much influence leftist groups like feminists have
> had on the ACLU and moving away from American values of
> individual responsibilty, freedom and liberty.
Was it the feminists that had them defend the Nazis marching in Skokie (1980?), or
the Nazis right to use public school space for their meetings?
At any rate - as I said above, you have the same rights they do - speech,
assembly, press - so go to it. Get to the people before the ACLU do.
> It may be
> time to start thinking about a second revolution.
Yes. But let's try an intellectual/moral revolution first, OK? I have three
kids, and while I'm willing to risk my life for the democracy I believe in, let's
not jump the gun here. So to speak.
> I have
> some quotes from some Americans on this issue.
And they're great ones - should be required reading for everyone on both sides of
this debate.
> It is quite
> clear the ACLU is enganged in the personal politics or their
> members and not loyalty to the Bill of Rights.
a) Of course they're engaged in their personal politics. Any
group will be, including the NRA. It's just that the NRA is
pretty monolithic - they're not overly concerned with the part of
the consitution before or after the Second Amendment. The ACLU
is a bit more complex - and, yes, I disagree with them much of
the time.
But "they" have the same right to "personal politics" that
you do.
b) It depends on how you define loyalty. They've spoken for the
First/Third/Fourth/Ninth/***th amendment rights of a lot of
people that I would never support (Nazis, flag-burners, Klansmen,)
at first glance. On further review, I realized that they
were right - if we don't defend the rights of the worst among
us, who will defend the rest of us?
We, (RKBAers) are not the worst among us - far from it. We
have an agenda. So does the ACLU. Both are valid, at least
to a point. It is our job to change their minds, or at least
nullify the impact of any campaign they m a y mount to
screw with the 2A.
>
Mitch Berg
---------
The opinions expressed above are not those of whatever company I'm
working for this week.
This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning
that America's gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian
night: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."
While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde,
violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold
equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word
processors, and television cameras. The Republic depends upon fervent
devotion to all our fundamental rights.
Jeffrey Snyder,
"A Nation of Cowards"
published in "The Public Interest"
C. D. Tavares
> Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
> Let me check . . .
> Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
> an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
Apparently, not supporting public funding of reading comprehension programs.
I`m unconvinced that a person having such difficulty in understanding plain
English is worth debating. "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms"
doesn't even remotely resemble "the right to gather as an armed militia
and be able to protect yourself from standing armies."
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly
before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military
forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country,
might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow
citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their
right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe, in
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.)
Followups.
--
c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
aaron greewnood
Lee S Wilfinger <lswi...@remus.ral.rpi.edu> wrote:
>In article <CL0Kp...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>JIM GRAHAM <gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes...
->>The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
->Don't worry, there are those fully prepared with historical facts to
->fight their lies.
-True. Still, it remains to be seen how well those with the facts will
-be able to spread their information. If the media doesn't choose to
-sell ad space to pro-gun groups, we're in trouble.
>
What about sending out mailers to target groups, ie people who vote. There is
always radio. Talk Radio has over 40 million listeners why couldn't the NRA or
other groups put on ad's that question the loyalty to the Bill of Rights of the
ACLU by quoting their lies then quoting the founders and other notable Americans.
ajg.
Stilt Man
David Veal <VE...@gateway.ce.utk.edu> wrote:
>In article <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) writes:
>>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>>Let me check . . .
>
>>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
>
>be rather ... illegal ... in most places.
The exact wording of the Second Amendment on this subject is "well-regulated
militia." The national guards qualify as such, and are indeed militias in
the old sense of the word. Street gangs and lynch mobs, on the other hand,
are not. The NRA could theoretically declare itself to be a militia, but
aside from that, there is no premise behind most of their arguments with
respect to the Second Amendment.
aaron greewnood
James R Cork <JIM...@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU> wrote:
>In <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu writes:
>> Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>> Let me check . . .
>> Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>> an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
>> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
> Maybe if you read the whole article (not just the first two lines)
>you would've gotten the point: that the Bill of Rights guarantees the right
>to bear arms not only to protect the general public from foreign armies, but
>from people in OUR government who would try to take away their rights.
> You might recall that just before Castro came out of the Commie
>Closet he disarmed the people of Cuba. Even if Clinton isn't quite as
>kooky as Castro, can we afford to take that chance?
>Jim
Exactly, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or
even home protection. It is a right that goes far beyond the day to
day living of one's life. It is protection against political tyranny.
In the quotes that went with the original article is is easy to see
that the Founders clearly intended that citizens to be armed.
With our country being in political turmoil by two significant groups
at such odds with each other and no resolution in sight one cannot help
but think the side that is more willing to die for their beliefs will
in the end dominate the other. I wouldn't be surprised if the future
held a chance of civil war or violent decay of our society because
leftists and their passion for state control to force us all to
live as they think we should.
On one side are people who seek freedom and liberty and will pay the
price to keep it. On the other are the leftists, radical feminists
and others who seek state control to see that "THEIR" ideas are
enforced. In a free socieity the government stays out of the personal
lives of people and their business. In a free society people talk
with each other and if they like their idea the change. We don't need
no 'stiking government and lawyers' deciding how we will live.
I wouldn't put it past leftists if they got control of the police and
military as well as got our guns to build reeducation camps for all
don't agree with their notions of life. Just the sort of
people the Founders had in mind when they wrote the second Ammendment.
ajg
aaron greewnood
James R Cork <JIM...@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU> wrote:
>In <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu writes:
>> Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>> Let me check . . .
>> Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>> an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
>> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
> Maybe if you read the whole article (not just the first two lines)
>you would've gotten the point: that the Bill of Rights guarantees the right
>to bear arms not only to protect the general public from foreign armies, but
>from people in OUR government who would try to take away their rights.
> You might recall that just before Castro came out of the Commie
>Closet he disarmed the people of Cuba. Even if Clinton isn't quite as
>kooky as Castro, can we afford to take that chance?
>Jim
Exactly, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or
even home protection. It is a right that goes far beyond the day to
day living of one's life. It is protection against political tyranny.
In the quotes that went with the original article is is easy to see
that the Founders clearly intended that citizens to be armed.
With our country being in political turmoil by two significant groups
at such odds with each other and no resolution in sight one cannot help
but think the side that is more willing to die for their beliefs will
in the end dominate the other. I wouldn't be surprised if the future
held a chance of civil war or violent decay of our society because
leftists and their passion for state control to force us all to
live as they think we should.
On one side are people who love freedom and liberty and will pay the
Stilt Man
C. D. Tavares <c...@sw.stratus.com> wrote:
>> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
>
>Apparently, not supporting public funding of reading comprehension programs.
>
Well, let's see here . . .
"A free and well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of the
states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
I believe that the exact wording of the Second Amendment is something to
that effect. I'm typing that up from memory, so I'm not entirely sure
whether that's the exact wording, but I am entirely sure that it's close.
You will notice that the main point at the beginning of the Amendment is
"well-regulated militia." The NRA makes the pretense that this Amendment
is only about people keeping weaponry, with no qualifications on it. That
is very simply not the case. The Amendment clearly qualifies that right
as stating that the people have the right to gather together in a well-
regulated, armed and free militia. It is in this context that the "keep and
bear arms" clause of the Amendment is stated. The NRA and the rest of the
pro-gun lobby in this country today attempts to change the context in order
to make their cause seem righteous. If they were to form a well-regulated
militia, then I'd be all for their cause. But every Joe and Jerry off the
street having a gun in their home is clearly not the context in which the
"keep and bear arms" clause of the Second Amendment was stated.
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped.
--Groucho Marx
John De Armond
>The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
>is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing
>so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
>can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
>political speech.
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.
An even better case can be made that the 1st only applies to
Congress, and by incorporation of the 14th, to state congresses,
and nothing else, per the 9th and 10th amendments. After all
"Congress shall make no law" is about as specific in only
restricting Congress as "shall not be infringed" is in saying NOTHING,
nadda, no government regulation of arms is legal.
>Read the quotes from the following and decide for yourself it the
>ACLU is dishonest.
> "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
> inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
> government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
> amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or
> overthrow it."
> Abraham Lincoln
>I love this quote from Abraham Lincoln. My support for the Second
>Amendment is summed up in this quote. As we well know Lincoln is
>in agreement with the Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other Founders.
>As well as others in our history to include the present time. Maybe
>we should put the ACLU on notice that we will not tolerate our Rights
>being "fucked" with and that the wisdom of Linclon is as meaningful
>today as it was a 100 years ago.
Before you get too goo-goo-eyed over Lincoln, I should remind you that
Lincoln was the bastard who waged war against the South when it tried
to do exactly that. I'd hesitate to quote anything Lincoln said in
the context of individual rights. The only intelligent thing he did
was to stop that bullet.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
"Dr. Kevorkian, please report to the Oval Office."
Andrew Rogers
>Is the ACLU a tax free organization?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the answer is no.
>If they engage in politics can we go after their tax free status?
Ask that question to the Catholic Church.
AWR
Robert J. Kolker
>Exactly, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or
>even home protection. It is a right that goes far beyond the day to
>day living of one's life. It is protection against political tyranny.
>In the quotes that went with the original article is is easy to see
>that the Founders clearly intended that citizens to be armed.
>With our country being in political turmoil by two significant groups
>at such odds with each other and no resolution in sight one cannot help
>but think the side that is more willing to die for their beliefs will
>in the end dominate the other. I wouldn't be surprised if the future
>held a chance of civil war or violent decay of our society because
>leftists and their passion for state control to force us all to
>live as they think we should.
>On one side are people who seek freedom and liberty and will pay the
>price to keep it. On the other are the leftists, radical feminists
Just a minute, bub! The majority of people are in NEITHER
camp. The vast bulk of the American citizenry:(1) do not think
government is evil (they are wrong); (2) do not perceive them
selves as being enslaved (they are are wrong). But you are
wrong to put them in the role of active pro tyrannists. Your
burden is to convice these folks that they ought to value
their liberty AND that the government as it currently is is no
friend to their liberty. Once you have their attention and can
convince them it is so, maybe the RKBA will not be in such peril
AND maybe such an informed citizenry can bring an end to the cloying
welfare state.
>and others who seek state control to see that "THEIR" ideas are
>enforced. In a free socieity the government stays out of the personal
>lives of people and their business. In a free society people talk
>with each other and if they like their idea the change. We don't need
>no 'stiking government and lawyers' deciding how we will live.
And demonizing the vast bulk of your countrymen is counterproductive.
>I wouldn't put it past leftists if they got control of the police and
>military as well as got our guns to build reeducation camps for all
>don't agree with their notions of life. Just the sort of
>people the Founders had in mind when they wrote the second Ammendment.
That is the sort of paranoid, survivalist crapdoodle that will
delegitimize your valid points. The government doesn't need
re-education camps to screw us, they can tax and regulate us to
death. Our enemy is not a fierce devil, it is a no-ball burocrat.
The good folks of this country are being gummed to death by ducks.
When we go down the drain (if we are not yet down the drain) the
first ammendment will be fully intact. The 2-nd, 4-th, 5-th
and 9-th will be effectively rescinded. The main sin of the ACLU
is that they don't take the 9-th ammendment as seriously as it
was intended. As soon as people buy the notion that *rights* are
granted by the government, they are already disarmed regardless of
whether they can have guns or not.
>ajg
Conan the Libertarian
Mitchell Berg
In article <CL10C...@world.std.com>, r...@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
> k...@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:
>
>
> >The possesion of arms for self-defense becomes an issue of safety when
> >the possesor uses the arms in an unsafe manner. I can't think of an
> >example when mere possesion of guns becomes a clear and present danger
> >to anyone. The only time "possesion" becomes a "clear and present
> >danger" is if the possesed substance is unstable enough that it can
> >harm someone with no human intervention. The key is that the human
> >must *do* something for a weapon to be a threat.
>
> In the case of any high energy nuclear device that uses uranium
> or plutoniam, the issue of (1) radioactive leakage and (2)
> appropriate safegaurds to prevent triggering naturally emerge.
Back to guns for a moment, if I may -
Bullets dont' commonly leak.
Just thought I'd point that out. |-(
>
> Hell, if someone were storing nitroglycerine, I think I have the
> right to know if they are taking the proper precautions against
> sudden rises in termperature or jiggling.
And you do. Explosives are both
a) regulated (more or less illegal for most of us)
b) *possibly* not covered by the second amendment. If you
adopt the "Militia Weapons" approach to the 2A, you might
figure that the average private soldier doesn't normally
carry explosives. (except hand grenades? Jeez, this is
complicated)
>
> Your insistence that the danger arise from purely accidental factors
> rather than human intervention is unreasonable. What about human
> stupidity. That is as much a force of nature as a tornado. Ask the
> people near Chernobyl whether an earthquake or drunken technicians
> are more dangerous.
That's true - combine an idiot and a gun, and you have a problem.
The same goes for combining:
Idiots and Free Speech (flag burning)
Idiots and Freedom of Religion (ultrafundamentalists/ultra-atheists)
Idiots and Freedom of Assembly (Congress)
Idiots and Freedom of the Press ("Dateline NBC", "Current Affair",
the U of M "Minnesota Daily")
Idiots and the entire bill of rights (William Kunstler)
JIM GRAHAM
Pro-constitution groups also count. One doesn't need to be considered
a gun-fanatic to be considered a patriot.
One thing that can be done, and perhaps the most effective, is at the
local level. Most local newspapers have a letters to the editor
section. They rarely (in my experience) show bias by excluding articles
they don't like.
Many newspapers also allow for "guest" editorials, written by "ordinary"
members of the community.
At least it's a start, and I've done so here.
aaron greewnood
Andrew Rogers <rog...@calamari.hi.com> wrote:
>In article <2jegg9$4...@galaxy.ucr.edu> star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:
>>Is the ACLU a tax free organization?
>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the answer is no.
Not a buble but a question. A good question if you are looking
for ways to fight for your Rights against an organization that
is infested with people who seem like they prefer their own
personal politics to the notions that our country was founded on.
To take out ads in newspapers for propaganda and lies shows a
corrupt group. The quotes given by Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams
and others show clearly the Second Ammendment was created to
give the people protection from tyranny of government. Lie all
you want but it does not change the statement and arguments of
the men who created the docutment know as the Bill Of Rights.
If the ACLU was honest and upright they would admit they don't
believe in the Bill Of Rights except when it fits their leftist
politics. If they were really honest they would promote the
repeal of the Second Ammendment instead of being liars and dishonest
people. But they know repeal would not happen. They don't give
a shit about the Bill Of Rights when their actions show that
they hold it in contempt. Just educated scum.
>>If they engage in politics can we go after their tax free status?
>Ask that question to the Catholic Church.
What is that suppose to mean? If they were tax exempt meaning
that those who contribute get a decduction I would want to see
that deduction taken away from people.
I still say if anyoune knows when and where these public education
meetings are to take place to post it. We should go down in
significant numbers and protest, pass out pampthlets with quotes
from the founders to show their lies. We should do everything we
can to upset their plans with legal protest. Just the way the
leftist upset and disrupt meetings. Tit for tat should be part
of the battle plan to combat the leftists who hold the Bill Of
Rights in contempt.
ajg.
>
>AWR
David Casseres
>>>The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
>>>so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
>>>political speech.
[James Robertson wrote]
>Look at the bright side: by advocating repeal, at LEAST there is an admission
>if what the second guarantees. This is a LOT better grounds to fight on.
>Look at how our fourth amendment rights have been stripped by the more
>circuitious approach that has been taken by the DEA and the courts.
Before the Bullshit Boulevard is completely flooded with the statement that
the ACLU advocates repeal of the Second Amendment, thus admitting that it
guarantees individual gun rights, let me point out that the ACLU *does not*
advocate repeal. It advocates an interpretation of the Second Amendment that
some of us disagree with -- specifically, it claims in so many words that the
Second Amendment doesn't guarantee individual gun rights.
Just the facts, ma'am.
-------------
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Larry M. Jordan
[snip]
>
>Exactly, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or
>even home protection. It is a right that goes far beyond the day to
>day living of one's life. It is protection against political tyranny.
>In the quotes that went with the original article is is easy to see
>that the Founders clearly intended that citizens to be armed.
>
If the Court can turn the establishment clause of the 1st amendment on
its head and make it mean something clearly unintended by the founders,
what is to prevent the Court from taking similar liberties with the 2nd
amendment?
It's really disturbing. The executive branch is currently anti-2nd.
The Congress is about to show its colors in the Omnibus Crime Bill.
How long will it be before the Court speaks? I don't have much faith
in the Court. If all three branches are corrupt, what then?
How does one communicate the import of what's happen w.r.t. 2nd amendment
to a population that's in 'condition white' as far as their freedom is
concerned and not be branded an 'alarmist'?
[snip]
--Larry
Greg Finn
Well, let's see here . . .
"A free and well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of the
states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
I believe that the exact wording of the Second Amendment is something to
that effect. I'm typing that up from memory, so I'm not entirely sure
whether that's the exact wording, but I am entirely sure that it's close.
You will notice that the main point at the beginning of the Amendment is
"well-regulated militia." The NRA makes the pretense that this Amendment
is only about people keeping weaponry, with no qualifications on it. That
is very simply not the case. The Amendment clearly qualifies that right
as stating that the people have the right to gather together in a well-
regulated, armed and free militia. It is in this context that the "keep and
bear arms" clause of the Amendment is stated.
Well, let's see here ...
To put it simply, you know next to nothing about the subject matter.
When you have read something about the historical development of the
amendment in question, are aware of what the framers wrote about it,
and what was reported at the time of the constitutional convention on
the subject, then ... and only then ... will you have an informed
opinion.
Until then you are just one more in a mass of opinionated individuals
who don't know what they are talking about. While you have the right
to an opinion, don't confuse that with having an informed opinion.
As to your grammatical argument it is:
(a) Wrong. The intial clause is a justification, not a restriction.
(b) Your interpretation disagrees with the published
interpretations at the time the amendment was written, and with the
interpretation of the framer of the 14th amendment, which was
passed a century later to prevent disarming of blacks during
Reconstruction, among other reasons.
If this makes you angry enough to go out and do some studying on the
subject ... fine. Let me recommend a nice encyclopoedic study book
for you that contains 65 pages of citations and 195 pages of dissertation:
Stephen Halbrook
That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right
Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1984.
When you are finished reading ... you will have developed an informed
opinion ... and then by all means make an argument as to what you
believe the amendment means. At that point your argument will
probably be a good one, based upon some knowledge of the subject.
--
Keith Emmen
: The Amendment clearly qualifies that right
: as stating that the people have the right to gather together in a well-
: regulated, armed and free militia. It is in this context that the "keep and
: bear arms" clause of the Amendment is stated.
Sorry Stilts, but there are folks quite skilled in the English
language that disagree. The following was posted by a fellow
named Rolf Nelson. I saved it for an occasion such as this.
----------- Begin Rolf's posting----------
===
Preface: To find out what the text of the Second Amendment really means,
one should go to an expert of grammar. So, a person called on one, and
this was the summary/response.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three
decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching
journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column
dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and
Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary,
and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.
Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus,"
has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and
is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
[That sounds like an expert to me.]
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I
sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert
in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect
to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be
restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and
intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely
become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second
Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional
opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation,
and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment,
then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and
task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe
it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second
Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political
importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms
for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of
our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other
political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into
which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary
to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited
in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather
than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which
is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and
bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere
or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with
respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'
granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment
assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely
state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence
is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved
inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned
upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the
security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the
statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to
keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence
of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the
right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia
as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep
and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place
conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right
deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as
previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated
militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,'
or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;'
this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed
meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but
not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors,
unless those issues can be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning
of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were
written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate
it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to
the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way
the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;
and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people
to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the
amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the
possibility of a restricted interpretation."
[(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational
reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author,
The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.]
________
[Editorial comment, from the author]
So..... The Amendment did not CREATE (or even claim to create) the "right" to
keep and bear arms -- it said that the citizens HAD that right, and that the
importance of militias were such that the government was forbidden to infringe
on it. The right was not "created" for the purpose of state militias -- the
government was forbidden from screwing with it because of the importance of militias.
Keith Emmen
: Hell, if someone were storing nitroglycerine, I think I have the
: right to know if they are taking the proper precautions against
: sudden rises in termperature or jiggling.
Um, I'm not sure you do have that right. I know that no one has ever
informed me that they had explosives, let alone how they were storing
or handling them. Maybe they do have the responsibility to tell me,
but I don't think they are *required* to.
: THe generic question
: is to what extent are we free to impose hazards on our neighbors?
I think we are free to do as we please until we actually harm someone.
There are lots of folks out there who impose a hazard on me when they
drive their cars, but I can't stop them from driving until they actually
do some harm.
: The excessive hazard (excessive is a matter of discussion and debate)
: that A inadvertantly imposes on B at some point ceases to be a
: right and becomes defacto aggression.
And when it becomes aggression, we can do something about it, but we
can't stop someone from doing something until they actually violate
someone else's right. Are you really saying that the gun in my home
or pocket is an aggression against you?
: I claim it is *my* right not
: to be put in danger of life and limb by blantant negligence and
: incompetence which exists both in the prive sector and government.
So I should be able to prevent you from driving a car because it's *my*
right not to be put in danger of life an limb by your car?
: The problem is when government does it we have been betrayed by
: the latter who are supposed to protect us from the former.
Sorry. I don't buy into the argument that the government is supposed
to protect me.
Keith Emmen
David Casseres
star...@galaxy.ucr.edu writes:
>If the ACLU was honest and upright they would admit they don't
>believe in the Bill Of Rights except when it fits their leftist
>politics. If they were really honest they would promote the
>repeal of the Second Ammendment instead of being liars and dishonest
>people. But they know repeal would not happen. They don't give
>a shit about the Bill Of Rights when their actions show that
>they hold it in contempt. Just educated scum.
As a matter of fact the ACLU has stood up for the rights of a lot of
individuals and organizations on the Right.
You should get a clue, Mr. Greewnood: it is possible to support gun rights
without making a fool of yourself by trying to trash the ACLU, an organization
that has more integrity than you do.
Richard Chandler
> "A free and well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of
> infringed."
>
> I believe that the exact wording of the Second Amendment is something
> to that effect. I'm typing that up from memory, so I'm not entirely
> sure whether that's the exact wording, but I am entirely sure that it's
> close.
Close, but not quite.
> You will notice that the main point at the beginning of the Amendment
> is "well-regulated militia." The NRA makes the pretense that this
> Amendment is only about people keeping weaponry, with no qualifications
> on it. That is very simply not the case. The Amendment clearly
> qualifies that right as stating that the people have the right to
> gather together in a well- regulated, armed and free militia. It is in
> this context that the "keep and bear arms" clause of the Amendment is
> stated. The NRA and the rest of the pro-gun lobby in this country
> today attempts to change the context in order to make their cause seem
> righteous. If they were to form a well-regulated militia, then I'd be
> all for their cause. But every Joe and Jerry off the street having a
> gun in their home is clearly not the context in which the "keep and
> bear arms" clause of the Second Amendment was stated.
You are probably going to be flamed in the coming days for that opinion.
Remember, the right mentioned in the second is not the right to be in a
militia, it's the right to keep and bear arms. It is not the right of the
militia to keep and bear arms, it is the right of the people. These are
significant points to remember.
The first part of the sentence is a dependant clause, taken alone, it does
not make a complete sentence. The second part of the sentence is the
independant clause, and does stand on it's own. I find the easiest way to
figure out what it means is to mentally add the word "Because" to the
beginning of it.
[Because] a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Well-regulated means properly functioning and accurate in the language of the
time (fine timepeices were said to have 6 position regulation, for example.
A double barrelled shotgun is well-regulated if the barrels both shoot the
same target.). The idea is that if people have guns and know how to use
them, they can form an effective militia when the congress calls them out.
--
What part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
"Ride a motorcycle. Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces,
The Environment, and Money. Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!"
Rich Chandler, DoD #296
Clayton Cramer
>>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>>Why does the ACLU lie.
>
>Let me check . . .
>
>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
You must have the ACLU copy of the Constitution. The text doesn't
that at all. It gives the reason, but it doesn't say, "right of the
people when operating as a militia" nor does it say, "right of the
state," it says, "right of the people" -- just like it says with
reference to the other individual rights protected by the Bill of
Rights.
>What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
> __________________________________________________________________________
>|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
They are claiming that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an
individual right -- even though there is not a SINGLE court decision
before the 20th century that denies that it protects an individual
right.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Violence on TV? Why can't it be on CSPAN?
aaron greewnood
David Casseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
>>Look at the bright side: by advocating repeal, at LEAST there is an
>>admission if what the second guarantees. This is a LOT better grounds
>>to fight on. Look at how our fourth amendment rights have been stripped
>> by the more circuitious approach that has been taken by the DEA
>>and the courts.
>Before the Bullshit Boulevard is completely flooded with the statement that
>the ACLU advocates repeal of the Second Amendment, thus admitting that it
>guarantees individual gun rights, let me point out that the ACLU *does not*
>advocate repeal. It advocates an interpretation of the Second Amendment that
>some of us disagree with -- specifically, it claims in so many words that the
>Second Amendment doesn't guarantee individual gun rights.
No one said that the ACLU wanted to repeal the Second Ammendment. The
comment was such as to imply that if the ACLU is picking and choosing
those Rights that "THEY" deam resonalble and proper the honest thing
to do would be to seek the repeal of the RKBA. But they didn't.
They choose instead to lie. They choose to distort and rewrite history
to favor THEIR OWN personal politics. The ACLU lies about and denies
what has been written about the meaning of the Second Ammendment by
the Founders of our country and the meaning of the Second Ammendment.
If you read the federalist papers, letters of Jefferson, Adams,
and the other Founders it is clear that the Second Ammendment is
an individual Right just like all the others. The Bill of Rights
protects our Rights FROM the government not the other way around.
They are rights that the government cannot grant or take away.
They can suppress those Rights if they have the power and will to
do so. And we people reserve the right to NOT obey the law.
You call it a difference of interpetation. I call it subversive.
By supporting outright lies and distortions you too could be
guilty of attempting to subvert the Bill Of Rights. By doing
so you open the door for other who don't like this right or
that right to step up to the plate and play. Play fair and
be honest a lot is at stake and those who play games and lie
will find the outcome is not going to be to their liking.
>Just the facts, ma'am.
The facts?
Just the facts? David, you couldn't handle the facts to paraphrase
a movie. Read your history, not the revisionist history you seem to
prefer but the actual paapers written by the Founders. Then tell
me if the Bullshit is the ACLU's or the Founders.
But you hit the nail on the head so they say. That to advocate repeal
would mean that it guarantees individual gun rights and thus admit they
are telling lies and using propaganda for selfish political reasons.
There is no doubt that you recognize the fact they lie by your statements.
But let't at least give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are
not a liar and favor propaganda over truth. Give us a argument as to
why the Second Ammendment is not an individual Right and why it only
as the, ha ha ha, ACLU says only applied to the British. What a
Far-King fable. Quoting leftist law professors is not valid. Stick
with the Founders and see what you can see.
ajg
Robert J. Kolker
>Robert J. Kolker (r...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: k...@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:
>: Hell, if someone were storing nitroglycerine, I think I have the
>: right to know if they are taking the proper precautions against
>: sudden rises in termperature or jiggling.
>Um, I'm not sure you do have that right. I know that no one has ever
>informed me that they had explosives, let alone how they were storing
>or handling them. Maybe they do have the responsibility to tell me,
>but I don't think they are *required* to.
I think you are in error here. There are laws about the storage
of large amounts of explosives. I don't think anyone would raise
a stink about a quarter stick of dynamite, but if you kept a
gross on hand, you would need a permit, which means you would
have to demonstrate you know how to store and handle the stuff.
>: THe generic question
>: is to what extent are we free to impose hazards on our neighbors?
>I think we are free to do as we please until we actually harm someone.
>There are lots of folks out there who impose a hazard on me when they
>drive their cars, but I can't stop them from driving until they actually
>do some harm.
Yes you can. If you can sic the cops on an obviously drunk driver *before*
he does damage, he can be given a field sobriety test and a breathalizer
(I have some reservations about the B.test, but a field sobriety test
is usually acurate). There is a principle in law of clear and present
danger. You do not have to wait for blood to be spilled. If the circumstances
warrant, *preventative* measures can be used.
If you stored hazardous chemicals on your property in a residential
area ( I am talking about stuff like chlorine gas or ethelyne bromide)
I can petition a court to enjoin you to move it to a safer area, away
from people.
>: The excessive hazard (excessive is a matter of discussion and debate)
>: that A inadvertantly imposes on B at some point ceases to be a
>: right and becomes defacto aggression.
>And when it becomes aggression, we can do something about it, but we
>can't stop someone from doing something until they actually violate
>someone else's right. Are you really saying that the gun in my home
>or pocket is an aggression against you?
Not at all.
For the umpty-umpth time I am not arguing about someone having a gun in
his house or his pocket for the purpose of self defense. I am talking
about storing dangerous amounts of energy, where their is no reasonable
purpose. Now if a person is in the roadbuilding business, I have no
argument with his storing explosives in a safe lockup until they are
ready to be used to bust rock. I also assume that said individual has
demonstrated his competance to use explosives.
>: I claim it is *my* right not
>: to be put in danger of life and limb by blantant negligence and
>: incompetence which exists both in the prive sector and government.
>So I should be able to prevent you from driving a car because it's *my*
>right not to be put in danger of life an limb by your car?
If I couldn't show minimal competence to drive, or I was an habitual
reckless driver you would have every right to object to me operating
a vehicle.
That is why you and I take a reasonable exam to show we know how to
drive. That is why we take an eye test to show we are not blind. Would
you let a blind man drive on the grounds he hasn't run over anyone yet?
>: The problem is when government does it we have been betrayed by
>: the latter who are supposed to protect us from the former.
>Sorry. I don't buy into the argument that the government is supposed
>to protect me.
The *only* reason for a government is to provide for the common defense
against crooks, murderers and foreign invaders. Most of us would rather
not speand 95 percent of our time guarding our assess, so we hire
watchmen to do the job for us. Of course we have to watch the watchmen
to make sure that thaey do not betray their trust thru cupidity
or negligence.
One of the blessings of civilization is the division of labor and
specialization of talent. Hiring a minimal government to serve
as a warder, is an efficient use of time, provided the government
is not permitted to become more dangerous than what is is guarding
us against.
If you want to advocate anarchy, which I am somewhat sympathetic
with, I claim you would either hire a watchman or be a watchman.
If you hired one, you would still have to guard against a betrayal
of trust even in the absence of a central government.
In any social order whether anarchic or not, there is a virtual
function of keeping the peace. It can be centralized or distrib-
uted.
Again, for the record, I have no problem with a citizen arming
himself for the purpose of protecting his body or his property.
If you think arming yourself is going to protect you against
government, think again. We live in cities (over 90%), we use
banks and telephones. Once the government controls money and
communication, they don't need guns. Your best protection against
government in a democracy is voting to limit its scope.
If we can't do that, then eventually we have to run for the
hills and join the survivalists, and live the primitive life.
And if you think that will produce liberty, friend, just look
at Bosnia.
>Keith Emmen
T. Mark Gibson
>As a matter of fact the ACLU has stood up for the rights of a lot of
>individuals and organizations on the Right.
>You should get a clue, Mr. Greewnood: it is possible to support gun rights
>without making a fool of yourself by trying to trash the ACLU, an organization
>that has more integrity than you do.
I like a lot of what the ACLU does. But I will not even consider becoming
an ACLU member until the ACLU starts supporting our right, as individuals,
to keep and bear arms, and stops opposing capital punishment for violent
criminals who truly deserve to be executed.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gibson | Free men keep and bear arms, slaves can't.
gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu | Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!
1:233/16 (Politzania) | Why trust a government that doesn't trust you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin
>True. Still, it remains to be seen how well those with the facts will
>be able to spread their information. If the media doesn't choose to
>sell ad space to pro-gun groups, we're in trouble.
If the media doesn't start playing fair, they'll keeping having their
heads handed to them when the try the "argument by authority" crap on
the Internet.
There _is_ an aclu.org. Draw your own conclusions...
Don
Stilt Man
Clayton Cramer <cra...@optilink.dsccc.com> wrote:
>You must have the ACLU copy of the Constitution. The text doesn't
>that at all.
Okay. This time I've got a direct copy of the Constitution on me (I'm posting
this from the modem in my room, rather than verbatim in the library like the
first one was).
This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.
"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."
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to being
synonymous with "well regulated militia."
BTW, for those of you who have emailed me one this, I can't keep track of and
battle sixteen different arguments over mail, so I'll take all flak on the
net instead. Any mail I get on this subject from this moment forward will
be cheerfully forwarded to /dev/null.
Of that mail, I saw only one real well-reasoned argument, dealing with a "U.S.
Code" which stated that all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 are
part of a militia. I see two clear problems with this argument:
1) Women and not-so-able-bodied men, as well as anyone over 45, do not qualify.
Therefore, if you are going to use this as an argument, you must also
concede that there is no legal reason why we couldn't disarm anyone
outside the militia group. This, however, would seem to cover all
those who would arguably need weaponry for protection from crime the
most.
2) This U.S. Code is, after all, a law, and Congress has the power to change
this, and thus it is not an obstacle at all. If Congress were to
meddle with the legal definition of "well regulated militia," there
would be no Constitutional basis of stopping them.
Others try to tell me of the words of various people who argue that a well-
armed populace keeps the government from becoming tyrannical. I've heard
that before. My response doesn't change: if today's federal government were
to get tyrannical, I have dim hopes that the weaponry available to the people
today would avail them aught but to get them reduced to their component atoms.
I don't think too many people would argue we should allow the common people
to have jet fighters, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weaponry, to even the
score with the government.
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
To fib is archaic, to flip, devious.
--basic motto for George Bush
Robert J. Kolker
.......snip.....
>Others try to tell me of the words of various people who argue that a well-
>armed populace keeps the government from becoming tyrannical. I've heard
>that before. My response doesn't change: if today's federal government were
>to get tyrannical, I have dim hopes that the weaponry available to the people
>today would avail them aught but to get them reduced to their component atoms.
>I don't think too many people would argue we should allow the common people
>to have jet fighters, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weaponry, to even the
>score with the government.
Let me augment you valid point. The government excercise tyranny
over the people, not by taking them down to Gestapo HQ to have
their nails pulled out, but by regulating (nay over-regulating)
commerce, by excessive taxation, and by redistribution of incomes.
The U.S. has become a de-facto fascist state, and our freedom of
speech has remained substantially intact during the period in
which this transformation occurred, since the end of the American
Civil War (or War for Southron Independence) until the present.
The Day of Doom of course, was the day Congress pried open our
wallets and passed the 16-th ammendment. This crowbar in the
hands of the politicians, has made all the subsequent do-good
redistributions and subsidies possible.
If every man, woman and child had an Uzi and unlimited ammo, it
would avail us not, till we get our lives de regulated.
Now can an armed rebellion happen? Yes. What will it likely bring
us? Our version of Bosnia. Unless the people of the nation get
back their lives from the burocrats and regulators by peaceful and
consentual means, we are in for a world of pain
e...@netcom.com
>How does one communicate the import of what's happen w.r.t. 2nd amendment
>to a population that's in 'condition white' as far as their freedom is
>concerned and not be branded an 'alarmist'?
The 2nd amendment gives you the right to nuclear weapons. That seems
alarming to me. Or am I just an alarmist?
No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
persuade the government to allow you to stay alive. Don't do anything
to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.
The world is different from the days of Thomas Paine. Back then,
people could defend themselves from all invaders with muskets and
bayonets. Thomas Jefferson, for all his genius, probably never dreamed
of anything like nuclear weapons or cruise missles being possible, and
maybe not even scuds. Guns are the great equalizer, but more modern
weapons ruin the equality.
Back then, we were considered an invincible military power because
"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in
such a country as that which we posses, are invincible by any force
which our enemy can bring against us." That is no longer true. In the
modern world, we have to rely on the advanced technology of the
Pentagon.
The words of the constitution are used as an excuse against gun
control. But it's just the words, not the spirit. Guns don't arm a
well regulated militia anymore, not to the point where they can resist
invaders armed with modern weapons.
The real reason we need guns is to defend ourselves against criminals.
That is the only real reason. Government tyranny has nothing to do
with it. Until the gun advocates understand that point, they will
continue to waste their time with arguments that don't convince any
reasonable person of anything other than that they seem to be nuts.
William December Starr
In article <2ji72d...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,
fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) said:
> This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.
>
> "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."
>
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to
> being synonymous with "well regulated militia."
Um, no, it isn't. What's clearly stated is that the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the gentlemen who drafted the Second Amendment, and the people who
voted to ratify it, had wanted to say "The right of the people, when
acting as a well regulated militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed," they could have. They didn't.
-- William December Starr <wds...@world.std.com>
William December Starr
[Note that I've added alt.society.civil-liberty to this thread and
dropped misc.legal from the "Followup-To" line.]
In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) said:
> Could it be that todays members no longer love the US or our history
> or culture? Who are these people in todays ACLU and are they members
> of special interest groups that we should be aware of? Who is the
> ACLU, who the Far-King A are they? I think they are becomming the
> enemy of freedom and liberty.
Despite your tone, you ask good questions. The ACLU today doesn't seem
(to me) to be the sum of its members but rather its national ruling
body, and I quite frankly _don't_ know who those people are or what they
believe in. And I sure can't tell from the literature that they used to
send me and the "please renew your membership" mail that I get today.
Which is one of the reasons I'm currently an ex-member.
Andrew Rogers
>>What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
>
>be rather ... illegal ... in most places.
And has been since long before there was an ACLU.
Andrew
Andrew Rogers
>I tell you David if the ACLU contributes to the subversion of the Second
>Ammendment and we lose the protection of our Rights the the Bill Of
>Rights gives us you may be very sorry in the future.
1) You'd have more credibility if you learned to spell "amendment" correctly;
2) In all your ranting and raving, you have yet to explain exactly what the
ACLU is doing to "contribute to the subversion of" the Second Amendment.
Can you cite a single case where the ACLU has testified for the prosecution
in a criminal case invoving violation of a gun-related law? If so, please
post the court and docket number. If not, then explain exactly what
"subversion" you have in mind.
Andrew
Frank Crary
Stilt Man <fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>>Why does the ACLU lie.
>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>Let me check . . .
>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
>What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
Well, obviously, the people can't gather into an armed militia if they
don't own any guns. For a militia to form, it's members must have
free access to arms. Otherwise you create a catch-22 where militias
have no realistic way of forming. That's why _both_ clauses of the
Second Amendment are important: Militias are necessary to the
security of a free state, and to assure the existence, effectiveness
and potential of these militias, the individual members ("all
citizens capable of bearing arms" in the words of the Supreme
Court) have a protected right to own weapons. The Southern California
Civil Liberties Union (not the national ACLU) is pushing the
disarmament of militia members.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Wayne J. Warf
>In article <2jgvr9$q...@news.aero.org> jor...@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
>>How does one communicate the import of what's happen w.r.t. 2nd amendment
>>to a population that's in 'condition white' as far as their freedom is
>>concerned and not be branded an 'alarmist'?
>
>The 2nd amendment gives you the right to nuclear weapons. That seems
>alarming to me. Or am I just an alarmist?
>
>No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
>from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
>against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
>persuade the government to allow you to stay alive. Don't do anything
>to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
>government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
>if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
>and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.
How would they nuke "us" without nuking themselves? That's the problem
with an insurgency, the enemy is all around you.
>The world is different from the days of Thomas Paine. Back then,
>people could defend themselves from all invaders with muskets and
>bayonets. Thomas Jefferson, for all his genius, probably never dreamed
>of anything like nuclear weapons or cruise missles being possible, and
>maybe not even scuds. Guns are the great equalizer, but more modern
>weapons ruin the equality.
>
Pray tell, how? Where do they use them? How do they separate enemy
from friendly areas? How do they destroy a section of the country without
driving the whole population to join the insurgents.
>Back then, we were considered an invincible military power because
>"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in
>such a country as that which we posses, are invincible by any force
>which our enemy can bring against us." That is no longer true. In the
>modern world, we have to rely on the advanced technology of the
>Pentagon.
It's just scrap metal if they can't use it.
>The words of the constitution are used as an excuse against gun
>control. But it's just the words, not the spirit. Guns don't arm a
>well regulated militia anymore, not to the point where they can resist
>invaders armed with modern weapons.
Modern history contradicts. Even the Soviets restrained themselves from
using nuclear weapons in someone else's country, Afghanistan.
>The real reason we need guns is to defend ourselves against criminals.
>That is the only real reason. Government tyranny has nothing to do
>with it. Until the gun advocates understand that point, they will
>continue to waste their time with arguments that don't convince any
>reasonable person of anything other than that they seem to be nuts.
What if the criminals are wearing government uniforms?
--
Wayne J. Warf -- WW...@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only, not IU
*<send request to receive or stop Indiana gun news mail to above address>*
Executive Committee member-Sycamore Valley Gun Club-10th and Range Rd
Bloomington, Indiana-Call for Range and Club Info: (812) 855-2701
aaron greewnood
David Casseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote:
>In article <2jgir7$e...@galaxy.ucr.edu> aaron greewnood,
>star...@galaxy.ucr.edu writes:
>>If the ACLU was honest and upright they would admit they don't
>>believe in the Bill Of Rights except when it fits their leftist
>>politics. If they were really honest they would promote the
>>repeal of the Second Ammendment instead of being liars and dishonest
>>people. But they know repeal would not happen. They don't give
>>a shit about the Bill Of Rights when their actions show that
>>they hold it in contempt. Just educated scum.
>
>As a matter of fact the ACLU has stood up for the rights of a lot of
>individuals and organizations on the Right.
So what, it does not excuse their taking a political position against
the Second Ammendment based on lies and propaganda motivated by the
politics of their leftist membership. So David I asked you to defend
the position and I see you choose not to. I can only assume your position
is not based on fact and that you indeed support lies and propaganda to
achieve you political goals. Prove me wrong and give an Argument in
support of the ACLU position. Read Jefferson and the other founders
and tell me if it is the ACLU or Thomas Jefferson who is full of Bullshit.
>
>You should get a clue, Mr. Greewnood: it is possible to support gun rights
>without making a fool of yourself by trying to trash the ACLU, an organization
>that has more integrity than you do.
>David Casseres
I feel that it is people like you and the members of the ACLU that
have no integrity for supporting propaganda and lies. Your relpy seems to
indicate you cannot answer the question I asked you. That question is
how can the ACLU make the claims they do when the historical facts say
otherwise. I offered in the original post the written words of our
Founders on the Second Ammendment. The Founders created the Constitution
and Bill Of Rights making it clear the RKBA is an individual right to
provide the citizens with a means of protecting themselves from tyranny.
This is a Right and not something the government can grant or take away.
I don't care how good a man has been in life if he commits rape just one
time. I don't care how good the ACLU has been when they RAPE the Bill
Of Rights. In the past the ACLU may have done good but today the is
infested with educated scum. Scum that has no regard for the Constitution.
Some feminists in the ACLU don't want them to take cases of Sexual
Harressment, Politics baby not a love of the Bill Of Rights. The ACLU
of today needs to be trashed. There is no partial credit in life. If
the ACLU chooses to subvert the Bill Of Rights and not to the honest thing
which is to admit they don't feel the Second Ammendment is a Right then
they should be trashed. They should have their public meetings protested.
I tell you David if the ACLU contributes to the subversion of the Second
Ammendment and we lose the protection of our Rights the the Bill Of
Rights gives us you may be very sorry in the future. There are enemies
of other Ammendments and they may take you lead execpt that they will
be after the Rights you love. It is not honest to play games and that
is what the ACLU is doing.
ajg
Larry DeSoto
>No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
>from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
>against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
>persuade the government to allow you to stay alive. Don't do anything
>to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
>government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
>if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
>and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.
I think I'm gonna puke..
--
Larry
lar...@neuron.pathology.washington.edu | finger for PGP Public Key
and not a mere Device
: In article <2ji72d...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,
True, but neither did they say "The right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed." Instead, they added that pesky little
clause at the beginning: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State,..." On the basis of that clase, thousands of
Usenet articles have been traded back and forth. Presumably, if they
had wanted to say it flat out, they could have. They didn't. The
significance of the clause -- explanatory, purposive, irrelevant -- is
what makes the RKBA debate so exciting, wouldn't you say?
On a related note, it is unfortunately impossible to determine the
significance of the 2nd Amendments paired clauses on the basis of comma
usage. In modern usage, we wouldn't put a comma between "Arms" and "shall,"
so the presence of other commas is unhelpful in interpretation.
So, Mr. Starr, what is the significance of the first clause of the Second
Amendment?
: -- William December Starr <wds...@world.std.com>
D.J.Schaeffer | The Todal looks like a blob of glup. It makes
go...@world.std.com | a sound like rabbits screaming and smells
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ of old, unopened rooms.
James Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_
David Veal
>In article <2jenje$j...@transfer.stratus.com>,
>C. D. Tavares <c...@sw.stratus.com> wrote:
>>> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
>>
>>Apparently, not supporting public funding of reading comprehension programs.
>Well, let's see here . . .
>"A free and well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of the
>states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>infringed."
"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."
The word "state" is not used in the plural as it is elsewhere
when referring to "the several states." Which leads me at least to
believe they were speaking of "state" in terms of the generic political
entity rather than specifically of the States.
[...]
>You will notice that the main point at the beginning of the Amendment is
>"well-regulated militia." The NRA makes the pretense that this Amendment
>is only about people keeping weaponry, with no qualifications on it. That
>is very simply not the case. The Amendment clearly qualifies that right
>as stating that the people have the right to gather together in a well-
>regulated, armed and free militia.
But it doesn't. The amendment says absolutely nothing about the
right to gather as a militia. The only right mentioned is the right
to keep and bear arms. I'm not aware of many people at all, least of
all lawmakers and judges, who would take seriously a right to gather
as an armed force.
What the amendment says is that a well regulated militia is necessary
to the security of a free state, not the right to keep and bear arms. It
is a reason to protect the RKBA, not a requirement to be met. The whole
point was to protect arms ownership to prevent the militia from being
disbanded effectively by being neglected. (That is, requiring the militia
to be provided for by the government and then never providing for them).
If the militia is a gathering of armed citizens, and you must
be a member of the militia to be armed... exactly how do you join the
militia? It becomes a catch-22.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal University of Tennessee, Division of Continuing Education
E-Mail: ve...@gateway.ce.utk.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal
>In article <VEAL.544...@gateway.ce.utk.edu>,
>David Veal <VE...@gateway.ce.utk.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt
>Man) writes:
>>>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>>>Let me check . . .
>>
>>>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>>>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing
>armies.
>>
>> *Cough*. Organizing and training as an armed body tends to
>>be rather ... illegal ... in most places.
>The exact wording of the Second Amendment on this subject is "well-regulated
>militia."
Actually, it's "well regulated."
>The national guards qualify as such, and are indeed militias in
>the old sense of the word.
The National Guards are also members of the United States army.
That is, in their case the Second Amendment would prohibit the Federal
Government from disarming ... the Federal Government.
Somehow I don't think they'd have written such a patently ludicrous
law. There was much concern of government abuse. I rather doubt anybody
even considered the possibility the government might try to ... horrors ...
disarm itself.
>Street gangs and lynch mobs, on the other hand,
>are not.
I suppose at this point I should be properly offended.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>The NRA could theoretically declare itself to be a militia, but
>aside from that, there is no premise behind most of their arguments with
>respect to the Second Amendment.
NRA? Who said anything about the NRA?
David Veal
>William December Starr (wds...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: In article <2ji72d...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,
>: fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) said:
>: > This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.
>: > "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."
>: > The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to
>: > being synonymous with "well regulated militia."
>: Um, no, it isn't. What's clearly stated is that the right of the people
>: to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>: If the gentlemen who drafted the Second Amendment, and the people who
>: voted to ratify it, had wanted to say "The right of the people, when
>: acting as a well regulated militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>: infringed," they could have. They didn't.
>True, but neither did they say "The right of the people to keep and bear
>Arms, shall not be infringed." Instead, they added that pesky little
>clause at the beginning: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
>the security of a free State,..." On the basis of that clase, thousands of
>Usenet articles have been traded back and forth. Presumably, if they
>had wanted to say it flat out, they could have. They didn't. The
>significance of the clause -- explanatory, purposive, irrelevant -- is
>what makes the RKBA debate so exciting, wouldn't you say?
One thing about the Framers was they were just a tad too literary.
In a number of places (most importantly the Bill of Rights) they didn't
set things down as simply as they could, and tend to vary wording for the
simple point of not being repititious. (Additionally, there's another
interesting clause in Article I, Section 8 regarding Congress' power to
issue patents and copyrights. It says specifically that the purpose is
the promote "science and the useful arts." Yet I really don't think the
inclusion of a reasoning means they can't issue patents to fundamentally
useful concepts.)
Tim Smith
>The exact wording of the Second Amendment on this subject is "well-regulated
>the old sense of the word.
If you are going to look at the old sense of words, how about looking into
the old sense of "well-regulated"?
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
>from the Pentagon.
Unless the Pentagon drops its silly objection to homosexuality, a lot
of military people are going to have wives and children who are in the
community with the rest of us. That limits the effectiveness of many
of the Pentagon's arsonal--nuking your enemy is not very attractive when
your wife and kids live next door!
Handguns and rifles would not be very effective if the Pentagon was
bent on destroying the United States, but they would be very effective
if they were bent on merely taking control of an intact country.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>simple point of not being repititious. (Additionally, there's another
>interesting clause in Article I, Section 8 regarding Congress' power to
>issue patents and copyrights. It says specifically that the purpose is
>the promote "science and the useful arts."
[The following is not directed to David Veal. His post simply provides
a good launching point. When I say "you" in the following, I'm refering
to the generic reader, rather than Mr. Veal.]
Article I, Section 8 is a good clause to illustrate the dangers of
trying to determine the meaning of the Constitution just from the
text. First, here's what it says:
"The Congress shall have power...
(8) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..."
Interpreting this by the usage and syntax rules of colonial times, this
can be rephrased to be two separate sentences:
To promote the Progress of Science by securing for limited Times
to Authors the exclusive Right to their Writings.
and
To promote the Progress of useful Arts by securing for limited Times
to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries.
The first one is the constitutional basis of our copyright system, and the
second is the basis of the patent system.
If you limit yourself to just the text of the constitution, you will come
to the conclusion that copyright can only be granted to authors on their
writings, and that this is to promote the progress of science.
Do Microsoft Word, John Grisham's latest novel, "Star Wars", Ice T's latest
rap song, or this posting promote science? If not, how can Congress get away
with allowing them to be copyrighted?
Even if you decide that "To promote the Progress of Science" should be ignored
for some reason, you've still got the problem of "authors" and "writings."
"Star Wars" is not a writing (the underlying script is, but the movie itself
is copyrighted too).
When you can explain how "Star Wars" is a writing that promotes science, you
are ready to take a look at the Second Amendment.
--Tim Smith
aaron greewnood
There are legal ways to train an armed body. Paint Ball Wargames Clubs
are one. Where recreation and combat training can be the samething
save paint ball uses live ammo. Paint ball gives greater feed back
to the player. Getting hit is a clear indicator that their is some
weakness in the players combat skills. Rifle and Pistol shooting can
be done outside on private property or at commercial ranges. Outfits
can be purchased along with all kinds of military goods at any good
Army-Navy store. Anyone can buy or borrow from a library books on
militay tactics, making bombs and other weapons. So it is very possible
train and build up a fighting force legally. I wound't be surprised
if there were quite a few armed bodies about besides the inner city
gangs.
ajg
aaron greewnood
Tim Smith <t...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
-Stilt Man <fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu> wrote:
->The exact wording of the Second Amendment on this subject is "well-regulated
->militia." The national guards qualify as such, and are indeed militias in
->the old sense of the word.
-
-If you are going to look at the old sense of words, how about looking into
-the old sense of "well-regulated"?
-
---Tim Smith
I believe the meaning in 1776 was well fuctioning. It didn't mean
government regulations.
ajg
Kenneth C. Mitchell
: In article <2jdv3p$b...@usenet.rpi.edu> lswi...@remus.ral.rpi.edu
How strange.
ftp.aclu.org: unknown host
ftp> open aclu.org
aclu.org: unknown host
ftp> bye
What conclusion should I draw from this?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Mitchell |"We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the
8037 Stone Canyon Cir|present crisis of our civilization except one: that the
Citrus Heights, CA |present state of the world may be the result of genuine
95610 |error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of
916-722-6040 (voice) |our most cherished ideals has apparently produced
916-729-0966 (fax) |results utterly different from those which we expected."
kmit...@netcom.com |
finger for PGP public|F.A. Hayek, _The Road To Serfdom_
key! |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth C. Mitchell
: In article <2jgvr9$q...@news.aero.org> jor...@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
: >How does one communicate the import of what's happen w.r.t. 2nd amendment
: >to a population that's in 'condition white' as far as their freedom is
: >concerned and not be branded an 'alarmist'?
: The 2nd amendment gives you the right to nuclear weapons. That seems
: alarming to me. Or am I just an alarmist?
Yes, you are an alarmist; and ALARMINGLY alarmist.
: No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
: from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
: against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
: persuade the government to allow you to stay alive.
Eric, we've pretty much beaten this point to death. The example of the
Viet Cong, the Afghan mujaheddin, and the WWII French resistance forces
pretty well demonstrate that an occupying army cannot hope to truly
conquer a determined guerilla population. The Pentagon will never use
nuclear weapons on American soil against American rebels, because that's
the land that they have to live in, win or lose.
Your pitiful defeatism doesn't belong here.
: Don't do anything
: to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
: government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
: if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
: and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.
Change your analogy to a bee, instead. You can kill a bee by stepping on
it, but he can still sting you; enough such bee stings, and you're a
goner. Military suppression of an armed rebellion would be a pyrric
victory at best.
: The world is different from the days of Thomas Paine.
Not so different after all, it seems; they had naysayers like you back
then, too. What was the rest of that line about "the summer soldier and
the sunshine patriot...."?
Frank Crary
David Casseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote:
>>If the ACLU was honest and upright they would admit they don't
>>believe in the Bill Of Rights except when it fits their leftist
>>politics. If they were really honest they would promote the
>>repeal of the Second Ammendment instead of being liars and dishonest
>>people. But they know repeal would not happen. They don't give
>>a shit about the Bill Of Rights when their actions show that
>>they hold it in contempt. Just educated scum.
>As a matter of fact the ACLU has stood up for the rights of a lot of
>individuals and organizations on the Right.
Mr. Greenwood was referring to rights, not the individuals who are
exercising those rights. The ACLU has defended almost anyone,
regardless of their political views, but only over the issue
of _some_ civil rights. If the right in question is approved
of by the ACLU, they are inclined to take the case. If it's a
right they don't approve of, the defendant is out of luck. Now,
a certain ACLU chapter is openly campaigning against a constitutional
right, simply because they don't like it. That's extraordinarily
hypocritical for a group that claims to champion the Bill of Rights.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Kenneth C. Mitchell
: William December Starr (wds...@world.std.com) wrote:
: : In article <2ji72d...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,
: : fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) said:
: : > This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.
: : > "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."
: : > The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to
: : > being synonymous with "well regulated militia."
: : Um, no, it isn't. What's clearly stated is that the right of the people
: : to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
: : If the gentlemen who drafted the Second Amendment, and the people who
: : voted to ratify it, had wanted to say "The right of the people, when
: : acting as a well regulated militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be
: : infringed," they could have. They didn't.
: True, but neither did they say "The right of the people to keep and bear
: Arms, shall not be infringed." Instead, they added that pesky little
: clause at the beginning: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
: the security of a free State,..." On the basis of that clase, thousands of
: Usenet articles have been traded back and forth. Presumably, if they
: had wanted to say it flat out, they could have. They didn't. The
: significance of the clause -- explanatory, purposive, irrelevant -- is
: what makes the RKBA debate so exciting, wouldn't you say?
Heck, that's easy. Here's one:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no
power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible
implement of the soldier, are the birthright
of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the
hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust
in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
-- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
And
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able
may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification
of the Constitution ... Debates and other Proceedings of the
Convention of Virginia, ...taken in shorthand by David
Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d ed. Richmond, 1805).
Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms."
-- Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the _real_ object of having those arms, in whose hands can
they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our
own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry ... 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for
the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.
-- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with
the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and
stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant
companion of your walk."
-- Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left
in full possession of them."
-- Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
: On a related note, it is unfortunately impossible to determine the
: significance of the 2nd Amendments paired clauses on the basis of comma
: usage. In modern usage, we wouldn't put a comma between "Arms" and "shall,"
: so the presence of other commas is unhelpful in interpretation.
: So, Mr. Starr, what is the significance of the first clause of the Second
: Amendment?
Quite simple. It explains why the rest is so imperative. Not as a LIMIT
on it, but as a way of emphasizing its importance.
aaron greewnood
Robert J. Kolker <r...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Mr. Greenwood,
>Just a brief question: would you support the right of a citizen to keep
>and tactical nuke in his house? Or a working Howitzer in his back yard?
>Or a gross of fragmentation grenades in his store-room?
Trick question. Few people would want tactical nukes in the hands of
their neighbors especially South Central in the City Of Angles.
So I suppose if I agree that I would not want my neighbor to have a
tactical nuke, although I wouldn't mind having one myself, you could
if you wanted at that point say gotcha. Gotcha good real good.
Then you could say since you agree to at least one kind of arms
control then a ban of the handgun is just a matter of degree.
Not that simple. As I said trick question.
>The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
>defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
>safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
>and present danger to one's neighbors? Should I be held hostage to the in-
>competance of my neighbor, the one with enough potential energy to raze
>the block I live on?
Citizens need enough firepower to protect themselves and to be able to
mount a revolt if needed. Sixty or so million armed citizens
are enough to stop any type of government out of control on it's way
toward a police state. Ask yourself how long the former Soviet Union would
have lasted had small arms been in the hands of the average citizen.
Would Cuba be under Casto's rule if he had not disarmed them?
Nukes are out of the question for citizens as well as other weapons
of mass distruction. Such weapons are not within the spirit of the
Second Amendment in my opinion. I wouldn't even classify them as
arms. They are not fire arms. Though the working Howitzer is. I believe
that the Howitzer comes under the Second Amendment but let's be real
and admit there is little chance anyone is going to be able to get
one and not be killed or in the least arrested by the BAFT.
I think we should only stick to fighting for our Rights not get
too bogged down with questions like you ask since they do not mirror
reality but are speculation. The reality is that there are political and
social forces hell bent on disarming the citizens of this country.
The reality is that congress is going to consider laws that would
require fingprints and computer images of each gun owner and a list of
their guns on file when said owners are issue a picture id.
What is this the former Soviet Union. That has got to stop.
It isn't a question of owning a nuke or not but one of stopping
the government from illegal actions namely ignoring the Bill of
Rights to favor political winds.
ajg.
C. D. Tavares
wrote:
>If you stored hazardous chemicals on your property in a residential
>area ( I am talking about stuff like chlorine gas or ethelyne bromide)
>I can petition a court to enjoin you to move it to a safer area, away
>from people.
>I also assume that said individual has
>demonstrated his competance to use explosives.
> The *only* reason for a government is to provide for the common defense
> against crooks, murderers and foreign invaders.
> If you want to advocate anarchy, which I am somewhat sympathetic
> with
>Conan the Libertarian
For a Libertarian, you sure talk funny. Try using both sides of your mouth
at the same time.
--
c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
C. D. Tavares
Rogers) wrote:
>In article <2jjb8n$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu> star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron
greewnood) writes:
>>I tell you David if the ACLU contributes to the subversion of the Second
>>Ammendment and we lose the protection of our Rights the the Bill Of
>>Rights gives us you may be very sorry in the future.
>1) You'd have more credibility if you learned to spell "amendment" correctly;
Oh, good, a spelling flame. That sets the tone right off.
>2) In all your ranting and raving, you have yet to explain exactly what the
>ACLU is doing to "contribute to the subversion of" the Second Amendment.
For those who came in late, the ACLU of Southern California has taken out
large newspaper ads in places like the NY Times claiming that the Second
Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to keep and bear arms --
only a collective right of the government. In other words, that the Second
Amendment is there to prevent the government from being able to tyranicallly
disarm itself.
>Can you cite a single case where the ACLU has testified for the prosecution
>in a criminal case invoving violation of a gun-related law? If so, please
>post the court and docket number. If not, then explain exactly what
>"subversion" you have in mind.
You certainly have a narrow point of view about what forms subversion
is allowed to take.
C. D. Tavares
>No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
>from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
>against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
>persuade the government to allow you to stay alive. Don't do anything
>to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
>government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
>if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
>and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.
I have a better idea. Why don't you roll over and your back and piss on
your own belly, if you want to so badly, and we'll all watch.
You lack imagination. Do you think that the federal government is the
only possible source of tyranny?
I recommend you check out the method that freed slaves used to defend
themselves from the KKK, many of whose leaders WERE the local government
officials.
I recommend you check out the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, in the 1940's,
where it took an armed populace to free a town from the grip of a political
machine that had been stuffing the ballot boxes for years.
I recommend you check out the election of 1800, where the threat of an
uprising among an armed populace caused the House of Representatives to
decide to forego the electoral shenanigans they had been contemplating.
>The world is different from the days of Thomas Paine. Back then,
>people could defend themselves from all invaders with muskets and
>bayonets. Thomas Jefferson, for all his genius, probably never dreamed
>of anything like nuclear weapons or cruise missles being possible, and
>maybe not even scuds. Guns are the great equalizer, but more modern
>weapons ruin the equality.
Odd, then, that a number of the founders owned private cannon, and ships
of war. They not only preached parity, they practiced it.
>Back then, we were considered an invincible military power because
>"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in
>such a country as that which we posses, are invincible by any force
>which our enemy can bring against us." That is no longer true. In the
>modern world, we have to rely on the advanced technology of the
>Pentagon.
Yes. It surely did us so much good in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.
Robert J. Kolker
......snip....
>Yes. It surely did us so much good in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.
>--
Consider Afghanistan. Mountainous with what? Three cities. The rest of
the country is rocks. Practically no infrastructure. And the greatest
contribution the Afghani's have made to civilization is the bushkazi,
a form of king of the hill, played with a decapitated cow. Afghanistan
is nothing like the U.S. which is urbanized and sub-arbanized with 80%
of the population living on 5% of the land. With a population so dependednt
on symbol manipulation and interlocking technology that a people's
revolution with guns is unlikely to work. Do you know why. The majority
of the population will not put up with a primitive life style. You know,
macho assholes wearing camoflage living in the hills.
If you want to get your liberty back, work on repealing the income tax.
>c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Conan the Libertarian
--
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
Stilt Man
Frank Crary <fcr...@benji.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>Well, obviously, the people can't gather into an armed militia if they
>don't own any guns.
If they gather into a militia, presumably said militia would have some sort
of supply of guns to distribute to its members. Nothing says the people have
to have the weaponry to start with.
>The Southern California
>Civil Liberties Union (not the national ACLU) is pushing the
>disarmament of militia members.
In which case there is a Constitutional case for that instance.
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
If you were a poor Indian with no weapons, and a bunch of conquistadors
came up to you and asked where the gold was, I don't think it would be
a good idea to say, "I swallowed it. So sue me."
--Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
Stilt Man
William December Starr <wds...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Um, no, it isn't. What's clearly stated is that the right of the people
And?
AND????
That's the basic problem with much of the gun lobby. They're taking a portion
of the amendment, and trying to claim it stands for what the whole thing
says. Take the following statement, for instance:
"John doesn't think he can have fun if he doesn't get straight A's."
Say that this was accepted as fact by John. Now say I don't like John. Since
that's an accepted fact, I could easily make a very nasty thing by John by
saying he admitted the following:
"John doesn't think."
Are you going to tell me that this is a clear representation of what the whole
thing said? Or are you going to tell me that I am blatantly clinging to one
portion of the sentence, in order to support that narrow opinion I happen to
hold myself?
Those who use the Second Amendment as justification of a supposed right of
every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have a gun are doing nothing different.
C. D. Tavares
(Stilt Man) wrote:
>>Well, obviously, the people can't gather into an armed militia if they
>>don't own any guns.
>If they gather into a militia, presumably said militia would have some sort
>of supply of guns to distribute to its members. Nothing says the people have
>to have the weaponry to start with.
Buy a clue. Guaranteeing that is precisely the point of the Second Amendment.
>>The Southern California
>>Civil Liberties Union (not the national ACLU) is pushing the
>>disarmament of militia members.
>In which case there is a Constitutional case for that instance.
So is this a matter of faith with you, or do you know of some case that
we haven't yet heard of?
--
William December Starr
In article <2jkeqj...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,
fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) said:
>> What's clearly stated is that the right of the people
>> to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [wdstarr]
[deletia]
> That's the basic problem with much of the gun lobby. They're taking a
> portion of the amendment, and trying to claim it stands for what the
> whole thing says. Take the following statement, for instance:
[example of sentence-truncation deleted]
> Are you going to tell me that this is a clear representation of what
> the whole thing said? Or are you going to tell me that I am blatantly
> clinging to one portion of the sentence, in order to support that
> narrow opinion I happen to hold myself?
>
> Those who use the Second Amendment as justification of a supposed
> right of every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have a gun are doing nothing
> different.
"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."
Sure looks to me as though "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State" is a preamble, an explanatory clause. It
serves to indicate the _reason_ for the statement of law which follows,
but it is not part of the law itself. The law, the rule which justifies
and/or limits governmental action, is simply "[T]he right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Maybe that isn't the way the drafters of the Second Amendment wanted it
to be interpreted. Maybe that isn't the way the majority of the state
legislators who voted to ratify the Second Amendment wanted it to be
interpreted. But that is the way it's written, and I believe that the
word of the written law takes precedence over the intent of those who
wrote it. Any other method of statutory interpretation denies the
citizens the basic right to know, with a fair degree of certainty, what
the state's laws are... it, in effect, allows for the existence of
secret laws.
Personal note: please do not assume that I necessarily believe that it
is a good idea for every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess a gun, any more
than I necessarily believe or don't believe that it's a good idea for
the federal voting age to be eighteen years (26th Amendment) instead of
twenty-one, of fifteen or thirty or what-have-you. I'm just explaining
what I believe the accurate meaning of the Second Amendment is, for
better or for worse.
And I note in passing that there _does_ exist, in Article V of the
Constitution, a mechanism for those who wish to alter or repeal the
Second Amendment to attempt to do so...
Jim De Arras
writes:
[...]
>
> When you can explain how "Star Wars" is a writing that promotes science, you
> are ready to take a look at the Second Amendment.
>
I suggest you take Reading Comprehension. The meaning of that sentence is
obvious, and the structure is in no way related to the phrasing of the 2nd.
> --Tim Smith
Jim
Jim De Arras
> In article <CL4Ap...@world.std.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >Um, no, it isn't. What's clearly stated is that the right of the people
> >to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>
> And?
>
> AND????
>
> That's the basic problem with much of the gun lobby. They're taking a
portion
> of the amendment, and trying to claim it stands for what the whole thing
> says. Take the following statement, for instance:
>
> "John doesn't think he can have fun if he doesn't get straight A's."
>
> Say that this was accepted as fact by John. Now say I don't like John.
Since
> that's an accepted fact, I could easily make a very nasty thing by John by
> saying he admitted the following:
>
> "John doesn't think."
>
> Are you going to tell me that this is a clear representation of what the
whole
> thing said? Or are you going to tell me that I am blatantly clinging to one
> portion of the sentence, in order to support that narrow opinion I happen to
> hold myself?
>
> Those who use the Second Amendment as justification of a supposed right of
> every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have a gun are doing nothing different.
>
Odd that this stream is titled "Reading Comprehension" when the anti-gun folks
posting here seem universally to lack an understanding of basic sentence
structure. When I was taught english, we had to diagram sentences to determine
the structure and dependencies. It seems that is no longer being taught. It
seems it is enough to say "the second amendment mentions a militia" to then
claim the right, guaranteed to the PEOPLE, is somehow dependant on a militia.
We're not talking Reading Comprehension 101, we're talking 6th grade stuff,
here. At least when english was really taught in schools.
Michael Lodman
>State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>infringed."
>
>Sure looks to me as though "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
>the security of a free State" is a preamble, an explanatory clause. It
>serves to indicate the _reason_ for the statement of law which follows,
>but it is not part of the law itself. The law, the rule which justifies
>and/or limits governmental action, is simply "[T]he right of the people
>to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It has always seemed to me that the reason for the explanatory clause
was that in the old days the government relied on the fact that
the militia personnel owned their own firearms. In other words, to
be in the militia, you had to bring your own weapon. There wasn't
much in the way of government issued firearms. (There wasn't much
in the way of a government.)
This understanding in no way detracts from my belief that we have
an inviolate right to keep and bear arms, because that is in fact
what is in the second amendment.
--
Michael Lodman Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of California, San Diego
jlo...@ucsd.edu (619) 455-1500 x2627
"If you don't care where you are, you ain't lost"
Greg Bailey
>Just a brief question: would you support the right of a citizen to keep
>and tactical nuke in his house? Or a working Howitzer in his back yard?
>Or a gross of fragmentation grenades in his store-room?
[rest deleted]
There is a large difference between the "right" to access devices of
destructive potential and the "right" to commit mayhem on one's
neighbors. By the above reductio ad absurdem you invite exploration
of the full range of each.
The kinetic energy and destructive potential of a automobile with a
20 gallon tank of gasoline, while not equivalent to those of a tactical
nuke, are quite sufficient to terrorize a neighborhood. If I were
interested in destroying a neighbor's house with all occupants, an auto
is suffient to the job. Just as a psychopath who would do this with a
car should be executed so we can all get on with our lives, so should
one who would do it with a tactical nuke, a howitzer, a pistol, a knife,
or his bare hands.
There are two general ways to attempt control of violence. One is to
try and delete all destructive devices from the environment. Good luck.
A Molotov cocktail can be assembled in minutes from materials readily
at hand in practically every household of this country, and is an
effective enough device even for antitank use as demonstrated in Eastern
Europe decades ago. Any notion of making violence practically impossible
is absurd; it simply cannot be done.
The other way is to encourage civilized behavior and absolutely forbid
uncivilized behavior. It will never be possible to prevent a determined
person from committing violence on his neighbors. The only possible way
to make real progress in these areas is to eliminate determinedly violent
behavior itself. If my neighbor wants to kill me there is *nothing* that
the antigun movement proposes that will prevent his doing so. However,
by making so much smoke over guns, we conveniently ignore the question of
why anyone should have to live amidst people who want to kill.
Doug S. Caprette
>In article <2jegg9$4...@galaxy.ucr.edu> star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:
>>Is the ACLU a tax free organization?
>
>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the answer is no.
>
>>If they engage in politics can we go after their tax free status?
>
>Ask that question to the Catholic Church.
>
Or the Methodist Church (HCI) or the Nation of Islam or ...
--
d...@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
| Regards, | Hughes STX | Code 926.9 GSFC |
| Doug Caprette | Lanham, Maryland | Greenbelt, MD 20771 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The love of money is the mother of all evil." -- Phoclides c. 600 B.C.
R Bryner
: The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
: defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
: safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
: and present danger to one's neighbors? Should I be held hostage to the in-
: competance of my neighbor, the one with enough potential energy to raze
: the block I live on?
How about at the point it is no longer a weapon of personal defense, but
of mass distruction. The key here is that you can targer an anti-aircraft
cannon or a gernade launcher, but you can't target a nuke, or nerve gass.
BTW, if you think it is easy to make an illegal SMG, you should look into
nerve gas;-)
Roger, Mad Dog Libertarian, Bryner.
*************************************************
I too am interested in the line we can draw WRT the distructive power of
weapons in order to make it a UNIVERSAL LAW.
(objectivists shudder at this point)
aaron greewnood
tom diesen <34Z...@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> wrote:
>The ACLU has finally shown beyond question they are NOT about
>civil liberties.
>The ACLU is, has always been, and always will be an organization
>dedicated to advancing a liberal agenda, under the GUISE of liberty.
>They are no more interested in liberty than was Castro. The "liberty"
>is merely a red herring to obscure the ultra-left agenda.
>tom
I think this is so in the present although perhaps in the past the
ACLU was what they claim to be. Now they are selective on what cases
they take and the selection is based on politics and not the intent
and meaning of the Bill Of Rights. We have gave them far too much
credit for being defenders of our Rights. There are many other
groups and individual who fight for rights and they outnumber the
ACLU. Why do some give them all the credit?
The LA gang of malcontents that make up the local UCAL are untra
leftists and I would think are social engineering types. The sad fact
is the Law Schools seem to be full of such types who no longer serve
the law but themselves. That is they seek to use the law to further
political goals and a social agenda. That is not their job that
job belongs to the people and the people they elect.
Congress does use law to further political and social agendas but
congress is elected. No one elected the educated scum of the Souther
California ACLU to put newspaper ads all across the country that are
lies and propaganda. As for the unltra left ACLU or radical feminists
they all hide their motivations and agenda behind a wall of fake caring
for society. What they mean is that they wish to control society and
make us live in the image they choose. Shows how little they know about
their fellow humans. The more you try to make people do what you want
the more they will resist and the more you need the power of law and
a police state to make them until the day the people have had enough. `
ajg
aaron greewnood
>In article <2jgvr9$q...@news.aero.org> jor...@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
>>How does one communicate the import of what's happen w.r.t. 2nd amendment
>>to a population that's in 'condition white' as far as their freedom is
>>concerned and not be branded an 'alarmist'?
>The 2nd amendment gives you the right to nuclear weapons. That seems
>alarming to me. Or am I just an alarmist?
You are being an alarmist. Nuclear weapons are munitions more than
weapons. I don't think you can classify them that way. Anyway no
one in the movement to guard and protect our Second Amendment Rights
is concerned about owning nuclear weapons. That argument is just
idle cocktail conversation. What many of us are concerned with is
the passage of laws that restrict or deny our Right To Keep And Bear
Arms. Rights that have been protected by the Bill Of Rights for
hundreds of years.
The Bill Of Rights does not grant Rights we already have them . It
protects those Rights from the govenment. The Founders knew governments
become corrupt and they knew times like we live in would come. Our
govenment is corrupt. To serve in it is not what they believe in.
To rule is. And to rule is not a principle on which this nation was
founded. Freedom and LIberty are. They don't use the word rule
but when they say to govern, rule is what they mean.
We have many citizens in our country now who have degenerated to the
point they believe that the governments job is to take care of them.
Brainwashing by the left and somewhat by the right. It is not the
governments job to take care of anyone it is the indiviuals. Period.
Taking away our Rights to protect us is the rational given by HCI
and others. It is not their job.
>No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
>from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
>against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
>persuade the government to allow you to stay alive.
I watched an interesting movie with my daughter. You must know that
this is Black History Month. CBS had a movie on called "The Vernon
Johns Story". Both Vernon Johns and Martin Luther King agreed that
if you were not willing to die for freedom and liberty then you
deserved what you got. That point was brought up over and over
again in the movie. At that time, the 50's, Blacks were sucking
up to the local and state governments. The result was cops could
rape and kill Blacks and get away with it. Nevermind the fire
bombing of churchs where the ministers were preaching the facts that
free people stand up for themselves against the government regardless
of the costs. Some of us beileve that still. Also those who founded
and fought for this nation in 1776 believed that. You go suck up
to the government if you like. I am a free citizen and Clinton and
congress work for me not the other way around.
Don't do anything
>to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
>government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
>if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
>and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.
At first I thought you were joking but it seems you are serious.
You seem to be already living with the police state mentality.
I never pity people who make their own beds and I won't start
now.
>
>The world is different from the days of Thomas Paine. Back then,
>people could defend themselves from all invaders with muskets and
>bayonets. Thomas Jefferson, for all his genius, probably never dreamed
>of anything like nuclear weapons or cruise missles being possible, and
>maybe not even scuds. Guns are the great equalizer, but more modern
>weapons ruin the equality.
If a significant number of people decided to revolt they would be
unstopable. How could less than 2 million troops gaurd the water
ways, computer networks, phone lines, media outlets, railroad tracts,
and freeways for starters. More likely they would have to gaurd
their own lives. Troops would gaurd Washington, State capitals,
government intallations and they would find out that their abiltiy
to fight a civil war would be hinder by the needs to protect things.
>
>Back then, we were considered an invincible military power because
>"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in
>such a country as that which we posses, are invincible by any force
>which our enemy can bring against us." That is no longer true. In the
>modern world, we have to rely on the advanced technology of the
>Pentagon.
Back then we were a rag tag army of citizens. Exacty what we would
be today. Look to Vietnam or to other wars where the rag tag have
overcome. The NVA and Viet Cong were at war for decades they didn;t
give up. If the will of people were half that strong then it would
be very difficult for the govenment to win.
>
>The words of the constitution are used as an excuse against gun
>control. But it's just the words, not the spirit. Guns don't arm a
>well regulated militia anymore, not to the point where they can resist
>invaders armed with modern weapons.
No country that has armed citizens can be taken over by a police state.
We are heading in that direction with all the laws we pass to control
the lives of citizens.
>
>The real reason we need guns is to defend ourselves against criminals.
>That is the only real reason. Government tyranny has nothing to do
>with it. Until the gun advocates understand that point, they will
>continue to waste their time with arguments that don't convince any
>reasonable person of anything other than that they seem to be nuts.
>
Government tyranny has everything to do with it. It is the reason for
the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or
shooting or even defense against criminals save when those criminals
are in the government.
ajg
Robert J. Kolker
.....snip....
>Congress does use law to further political and social agendas but
>congress is elected. No one elected the educated scum of the Souther
Of course not, lack-wit, it is a *private* organization, just
like the KKK is private.
>California ACLU to put newspaper ads all across the country that are
>lies and propaganda. As for the unltra left ACLU or radical feminists
>they all hide their motivations and agenda behind a wall of fake caring
Meaning you don't agree with them. In the market place of ideas
the rule is *caveat emptor*, let the buyer beware. BTW they are
excercising their rights under the 1-st Ammendment. Just keep
in mind that the pen/word-processor is mightier than the Uzi.
You can kill people, but you can't kill ideas, even bad ones.
>for society. What they mean is that they wish to control society and
>make us live in the image they choose. Shows how little they know about
>their fellow humans. The more you try to make people do what you want
>the more they will resist and the more you need the power of law and
>a police state to make them until the day the people have had enough. `
I swear you are having a tantrum. Just because the UCAL does not
believe that the 2-d ammendment is the Word of The Living God,
you are frothing at the mouth. Cool out. These people are not
elected officials.
>ajg
aaron greewnood
Robert J. Kolker <r...@world.std.com> wrote:
Cool down Conan, chill out. I have my opinion. I am not attacting the
first amendment or any such thing. The ACLU is using propaganda
to undermine the Second Amendment. You may or may not agree with
them but none the less why sit silently by when they trash an
amendment to the Constitution with lies and propaganda and ignor
the historical truth. You may have free speech to say what you
want but that does not stop me or others from pointing out your speech
is lies and propaganda that your motive are far from pure.
> Meaning you don't agree with them. In the market place of ideas
> the rule is *caveat emptor*, let the buyer beware. BTW they are
> excercising their rights under the 1-st Ammendment. Just keep
> in mind that the pen/word-processor is mightier than the Uzi.
> You can kill people, but you can't kill ideas, even bad ones.
So it has been said many times before. Just a question where do you
stand on the Second Amendment. I believe you support it but I would
like to know explicitly? Tell us what stand you take.
>>for society. What they mean is that they wish to control society and
>>make us live in the image they choose. Shows how little they know about
>>their fellow humans. The more you try to make people do what you want
>>the more they will resist and the more you need the power of law and
>>a police state to make them until the day the people have had enough. `
> I swear you are having a tantrum. Just because the UCAL does not
> believe that the 2-d ammendment is the Word of The Living God,
> you are frothing at the mouth. Cool out. These people are not
> elected officials.
Perhaps but if we don't make an issue out of it and lie back then these
assholes just might succeed in getting enough people to believe them.
These people are in opposition to one of the strongest ideals of the
Founders that is the abiltiy of the people to protect themselves agaist
tyranny in government. You may think it can not happen here but I
assure it all ready is and I think you know that.
From your posts you seem to agree that the govenment is corrupt and
infringing on our liberty. The Southern California branch of the ACLU
has the media more or less on it's side. Our side does not. Most
media outlets will not let us tell our side of this great debate.
You call me frothing at the mouth and a having a tantrum. Call it what you
want there are quite a few who have agreed with me. We are the one's
who are being silenced by not being allowed access to the media. Kinda
makes the so called "fairness doctrine" desirable. NOT. But the supression
of one right can lead to the suppress of others.
ajg
Larry DeSoto
>star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:
>.....snip....
>>Congress does use law to further political and social agendas but
>>congress is elected. No one elected the educated scum of the Souther
> ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> Of course not, lack-wit, it is a *private* organization, just
> like the KKK is private.
>>California ACLU to put newspaper ads all across the country that are
>>lies and propaganda. As for the unltra left ACLU or radical feminists
>>they all hide their motivations and agenda behind a wall of fake caring
> Meaning you don't agree with them. In the market place of ideas
> the rule is *caveat emptor*, let the buyer beware. BTW they are
> excercising their rights under the 1-st Ammendment. Just keep
> in mind that the pen/word-processor is mightier than the Uzi.
> You can kill people, but you can't kill ideas, even bad ones.
Fine, the problem is that the same mass media organizations will not
sell time and print space to the NRA or other related pro-second
amendment organizations. Pro forces could win on facts...if we could
get them published or aired. It is sad the anti's know this and make
certain only their views are heard. It isn't surprising as this has
been a tactic of the left ever since the Vietnam war protests.
--
Larry
lar...@neuron.pathology.washington.edu | finger for PGP Public Key
Dan White
>In article <CL4JC...@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>,
>Frank Crary <fcr...@benji.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>Well, obviously, the people can't gather into an armed militia if they
>>don't own any guns.
>
>If they gather into a militia, presumably said militia would have some sort
>of supply of guns to distribute to its members. Nothing says the people have
>to have the weaponry to start with.
>|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
Let's try some history:
[begin quotation]
Ten days after the Bill of Rights was proposed in the House, Tench
Coxe published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the
Federal Constitution," under the pen name "A Pennsylvanian," in the
Philadelphia Federal Gazette. Probably the most complete exposition
of the Bill of Rights to be published during its ratification period,
the "Remarks" included the following:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly
before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces
which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert
their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are
confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their
private arms."
^^^^^^^
[end quotation, page 76]
Or how about what Samuel Adams said during the debates over
ratification of the Bill of Rights:
[begin quotation]
"And that the said constitution be never construed to authorize
congress...to prevent the people of the United States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
^^^
[end quotation, page 80]
[from Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of
a Constitutional Right"]
Dan
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel White, Jr. dwh...@spdc.ti.com
Texas Instruments, Inc., Dallas, TX 75265
----------------------------------------------------------
Pat Myrto
>JIM GRAHAM <gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes...
>
>>>
>>>The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
>>
>>Don't worry, there are those fully prepared with historical facts to
>>fight their lies.
>
>True. Still, it remains to be seen how well those with the facts will
>be able to spread their information. If the media doesn't choose to
>sell ad space to pro-gun groups, we're in trouble.
They won't. Why do you think there are no NRA or pro-gun ads on national
TV? Because the networks refuse to sell time for them - at ANY price.
If you get ANY air time, it will have to be local station by local
station. NBC, CBS, or ABC owned stations, you are out of luck.
So much for objective, even-handed coverage. Note the HCI agenda gets
almost unlimited free editorial support, often mixed in with what is
supposed to be factual news.
Public TV offered various awards for good journalism. One of the winners
was an anti-gun slanted piece on violence.
Remember, it was the pres of NBC who advocated repeal of the Second
Amendment. All the elitists (including those running the media) are
against the 'commoners' having guns. ANY guns.
--
p...@rwing.uucp [Without prejudice UCC 1-207] (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
[ If all else fails, try: rwing!p...@ole.cdac.com or uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat ]
Events demonstrate our government has crossed that line of being the servant
of the people, to become their master. See Clipper/Capstone releases, BoR.
Robert J. Kolker
>In article <CL6t...@world.std.com>,
>Robert J. Kolker <r...@world.std.com> wrote:
......snip....
>So it has been said many times before. Just a question where do you
>stand on the Second Amendment. I believe you support it but I would
>like to know explicitly? Tell us what stand you take.
FTR, I support the entire Bill of Rights, including, of course,
the second amendment. However, I consider some articles more
important than others. I will rank the top 6 in the in order
of importance I give them. 1, 9, 4, 5, 6, 10. I rank the 2-d
amendment 7 or 8 in my list. The one concerning the quartering
of troops I rank last.
>Perhaps but if we don't make an issue out of it and lie back then these
>assholes just might succeed in getting enough people to believe them.
>These people are in opposition to one of the strongest ideals of the
>Founders that is the abiltiy of the people to protect themselves agaist
>tyranny in government. You may think it can not happen here but I
>assure it all ready is and I think you know that.
I do.
>You call me frothing at the mouth and a having a tantrum. Call it what you
>want there are quite a few who have agreed with me. We are the one's
>who are being silenced by not being allowed access to the media. Kinda
>makes the so called "fairness doctrine" desirable. NOT. But the supression
>of one right can lead to the suppression of others.
You are not being supressed. There is no law forbidding you to
advocate your postion peacibly. You have every right to publish,
speechify, preach and rant your views. On the other hand, no
private party has any duty to publish your views or provide you with
a forum. As long as there is no legal prior restraint on your 1-st
amendment rights, you cannot claim suppression.
While I have your attention, consider this question. Say for arguments
sake the 1% of the adult population are conscious, enthusiastic, will-
ful tyrants who believe they know what is best for the rest and wish
to impose their crotchets upon us by force and taxation. Assume that
1% of the population are Sons of Libertry, the Minute Man Reborn, and
are ready to take down their trusty Uzi's from the mantle piece and
do battle against the tyrant. That leaves 98% of the adult population
either indifferent, inert, or at best luekwarm. Now I ask, do you
think you have a right through armed insurrection to destroy the
techno-infrastructure of the society to bring down the government
even if it dooms millions to freeze in the dark?
I ask that, because you zealots who don't have the patience to
persuade the slow-witted, and exhaust *all* the peaceful remedies
first, are in effect just another kind of tyrant. We will acheive
our political salvation by peaceful means, or we will languish in
collectivist semi-slavery (as we are doing now) or there will be
armed insurrection and we will become Beruit, or Londonderry, or
Bosnia. Now if I have missed a possibility in this list, please do
show me the error of my ways.
Frank Crary
Stilt Man <fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>>>Let me check . . .
>>>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>>>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
>> *Cough*. Organizing and training as an armed body tends to
>>be rather ... illegal ... in most places.
>The exact wording of the Second Amendment on this subject is "well-regulated
>militia." The national guards qualify as such, and are indeed militias in
>the old sense of the word...
Strictly speaking, they are a "select militia", one having a very
limited membership, selected and trained for loyalty to the
government and under strict control of the government. If you
bother to read the debates over the militia, which led to the
addition of the Second Amendment, it was greatly feared that
the government would neglect the general militia create a
select militia. The Amendment was intended to enhance the
general militia, composed of all physically capable citizens, and
place it beyond the control of the government. So the National
Guard is not the sort of militia referred to in the Second Amendment.
>...Street gangs and lynch mobs, on the other hand,
>are not. The NRA could theoretically declare itself to be a militia...
But, as has been pointed out, such a private, organized para-military
group would be illegal in most states. So, by your logic, the
Second Amendment must either protect the right of private citizens
(potential members of the militia) to own firearms or the laws
against paramilitary organizations are unconstitutional (i.e. the
Amendment protects the right to join or form non-government militias)
or the entire Amendment is completely meaningless (the right of
the government to arm it's own militia is absurd, and a
catch-22, "You can own guns if you form a militia, but you can't
form or join a militia," is equally meaningless.)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
Stilt Man <fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu> wrote:
>This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.
>"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."
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to being
>synonymous with "well regulated militia."
Yes, because the militia the Amendment was designed to protect includes
as great a fraction of the people as possible. Ideally, "the people"
and "the members of the militia" are the same thing. So the people
owning guns means that the militia is well-armed. That's an
obvious prerequisite for a "well regulated militia."
>Of that mail, I saw only one real well-reasoned argument, dealing with a "U.S.
>Code" which stated that all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 are
>part of a militia. I see two clear problems with this argument:
>1) Women and not-so-able-bodied men, as well as anyone over 45, do not qualify.
> Therefore, if you are going to use this as an argument, you must also
> concede that there is no legal reason why we couldn't disarm anyone
> outside the militia group.
No, the Supreme Court said something relevant in US v. Miller. The
gun-ownership in question does need to be connected to some sort
of militia. But it doesn't have to be a gun owned by a member. Any
ownership "reasonable related" to the militia is covered. Ownership,
for example, by a 60 year-old grandmother who might teach a grandson
how to shoot. She's not a member of the militia, but by owning a
gun she is able to train members. That contributes enough to
include her gun-ownership in the Second Amendment.
>2) This U.S. Code is, after all, a law, and Congress has the power to change
> this, and thus it is not an obstacle at all. If Congress were to
> meddle with the legal definition of "well regulated militia," there
> would be no Constitutional basis of stopping them.
The definition is confirmed in two Supreme Court rulings, "all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" (US
v. Miller) and everyone "capable of bearing arms." The writings of
all the framers of the Second Amendment and the legal writings
of early-18th century constitutional law scholars confirm this
definition.
>Others try to tell me of the words of various people who argue that a well-
>armed populace keeps the government from becoming tyrannical. I've heard
>that before. My response doesn't change: if today's federal government were
>to get tyrannical, I have dim hopes that the weaponry available to the people
>today would avail them aught but to get them reduced to their component atoms.
And again, you have ignored the number of modern, well-armed government
that have fallen, despite all their aircraft and tanks, to rebels
that started out with nothing but rifles.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
Stilt Man <fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>Well, obviously, the people can't gather into an armed militia if they
>>don't own any guns.
>If they gather into a militia, presumably said militia would have some sort
>of supply of guns to distribute to its members. Nothing says the people have
>to have the weaponry to start with.
The members supplying their own arms is the most reliable way of
assuring the militia is armed. Government-supplied arms are
subject ot government control, as is buying guns in bulk after
the militia is formed. The entire point of a militia is to have
an armed force _independent_ of the government, controled
directly by the people themselves. The framers of our Constitution
considered a government-organized and armed militis, as per
Article One, Section 8. This idea was rejected, since it
made the militia incapable of independent action and subject to
a government veto. Instead, they added the Second Amendment, to
protect the militia even in the face of government hostility,
by assuring that the people had a direct and uncontroled access
to arms.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Stilt Man
C. D. Tavares <c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com> wrote:
>In Article <2jke1r...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu
>(Stilt Man) wrote:
>>If they gather into a militia, presumably said militia would have some sort
>>of supply of guns to distribute to its members. Nothing says the people have
>>to have the weaponry to start with.
>
>Buy a clue. Guaranteeing that is precisely the point of the Second Amendment.
Not necessarily. It simply says they have the right to gather in a well
regulated militia and thus keep and bear arms. Nothing says they can't
own the guns only as part of such a collective. For the purposes of a
militia standing watch against tyranny, which is the overriding argument
for the Second Amendment which is so often pointed out to me, this would
satisfy its purpose quite well. Such a militia armed only as a collective
security of the states would also reduce the amount of crime committed with
firearms. If gun ownership were restricted to such militias, and could be
done in fact as well as idea, the purpose of protection against tyranny would
be served quite well, and would eliminate crime committed with firearms.
>>>The Southern California
>>>Civil Liberties Union (not the national ACLU) is pushing the
>>>disarmament of militia members.
>
>>In which case there is a Constitutional case for that instance.
>
>So is this a matter of faith with you, or do you know of some case that
>we haven't yet heard of?
I don't know of any case argued in court in the past regarding this. I am
stating that if gun lobbyists wished to argue this in court, then I would
agree that there is a case based upon the Second Amendment to support them.
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy.
Stilt Man
Frank Crary <fcr...@benji.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>But, as has been pointed out, such a private, organized para-military
>group would be illegal in most states. So, by your logic, the
>Second Amendment must either protect the right of private citizens
>(potential members of the militia) to own firearms or the laws
>against paramilitary organizations are unconstitutional (i.e. the
>Amendment protects the right to join or form non-government militias)
>or the entire Amendment is completely meaningless (the right of
I agree with the second of these three interpretations. So long as such
militia organizations, such as those gathered in the days of Abraham
Lincoln's membership during the Black Hawk Indian War, or so it was called,
are not gathered for criminal intent, then they should be protected under
the Constitution. Trouble is, few people wish to form such groups for any
reasons other than criminal.
Stilt Man
Frank Crary <fcr...@benji.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>And again, you have ignored the number of modern, well-armed government
>that have fallen, despite all their aircraft and tanks, to rebels
>that started out with nothing but rifles.
You mean, such as Saddam Hussein at the hands of the Kurds? Such as Hitler's
Germany at the hands of the French Resistance (alone)? Such as the Chinese
government at the hands of the protesters in Tianenman Square (you tell me
what good rifles would have done those poor people)?
Take a tyrant at the top of the U.S. Government. What would he do if he wanted
to forcibly suppress resistance? What would such a tyrant have access to? A
particular city causing troubles? Nuke it. An area being used as a gathering
place for rebels? Hit them with the largest chemical and biological weapons
stocks in the world. Secret resistance? Bring in secret police. Organized
resistance? Bring in the carpet bombings, bring in the weapons of mass
destruction, bring in the tanks, and leave them for the janitor who could
by that time clean what's left of a given rebel off the streets with a mop.
Forget. If the arsenal at the disposal of our Federal government were to fall
into the hands of a tyrant who was willing to use it to hold onto his seat of
power, I have very little hope that men with rifles would stand a tax
collector's chance at paradise against him/her (it?).
Al Brackett--FAbracketO OPS--232-7620--DGC
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PLEASE EXCUSE THE FACT THAT I HAVE LEFT THE WHOLE POST INTACT..
Should we take it then, that you would rather try to drink away
your problems, than to face them and try to fix them?
I was just wondering, considering you .sig and your post toghther..
--
regards/ al
--
Did I drop my .sig in the coffee??? Al Brackett
N1IQQ @ KA1RCI.RI (for those that know) abra...@dg-webo.webo.dg.com
Work For Peace / Plan For Conflict / HONOR FIRST and LAST
[insert] Standard Disclamer Here< > BLESS / PEACE
Donald R. McGregor
:>>that have fallen, despite all their aircraft and tanks, to rebels
:>>that started out with nothing but rifles.
:>
:>You mean, such as Saddam Hussein at the hands of the Kurds?
I'd note that the Kurds prefered being armed to not. And that
by being armed, they were able to establish an antonomous
region within Iraq that is still in operation today. Of
course, they had some external help, and their independence
within Iraq is guaranteed by foreign powers, but then
no one said you can't use a militia _and_ diplomacy.
--
Don McGregor | "It looks just like Caesars Palace. It's very
mcg...@crl.com | tastefully done."
Tapani Tarvainen
>Don Baldwin (do...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: There _is_ an aclu.org. Draw your own conclusions...
>How strange.
>ftp.aclu.org: unknown host
>ftp> open aclu.org
>aclu.org: unknown host
>ftp> bye
>What conclusion should I draw from this?
That aclu.org doesn't provide ftp access?
Mail works, though: Try
nslookup -que=mx aclu.org
--
Tapani Tarvainen t...@math.jyu.fi (internet)
tarvainen@finjyu (bitnet)
e...@netcom.com
One thing seems very obvious. The 2nd amendment gives private citizens
the right to all kinds of weapons, not just guns. Those weapons
include Patriot missles, cruise missles, etc.
Therefore, anyone who doesn't believe private citizens should be
allowed to own such weapons, doesn't have a valid case that they should
be allowed to own guns.
The pro-gun lobby consists mostly of people who are in favor of gun
ownership in particular, not in the protection of the 2nd amendment in
general. They are using the amendment for their own purposes. It is a
lie to say that most gun owners own their guns as defense from
government tyranny. Their main reason is defense from everyday crime.
The ultimate solution to the whole problem will probably be
technology. At some point, it may become feasible to have effective
non-violent defense against guns. There are a lot of ways such defense
could work, but there is no predicting it. One example would be to
have robots everywhere always watching for bullets and ready to fire
their own weapons at each bullet to destroy it before it reaches its
target. Such robots are possible now, but would be expensive. But
technology becomes cheaper, and it might not be too many more years
till you can buy such things at Radio Shack.
Defense from government tyranny, on the other hand, doesn't require
guns at all. How many guns do you think it took to stop the overthrow
of Gorbachev's government? It just took a lot of brave unarmed people
such as Yeltsin. All they had to do was stand in front of the tanks
and cry "shame", and stand on the tanks and give speeches. But if it
did get to the point where they would need guns, they would need a
lot more firepower than just from handguns. At the very least, they
would need anti-tank weapons.
Robert J. Kolker
.....snip. ....
>And again, you have ignored the number of modern, well-armed government
>that have fallen, despite all their aircraft and tanks, to rebels
>that started out with nothing but rifles.
Please answer the following question:
(1) Where did they succeed.
(2) Where the countries urban/industrial or rural/pastoral
(3) Have you also counted the case where rebellions failed
(4) Are you counting coups by dissident military types or
genuine "people's revolutions"
(5) In how many cases, was the former government replaced
by something better.
The only successful overthrows of governments *by their own
subjects/citizens* in recent years has been the falling apart
of the Warsaw Pact and the late and unlamented Soviet Union.
And this was not because the citizens were armed, but because
the governments had fallen apart through economic disolution.
The overthrow was really a capitualtion, initiated at the top.
In the recent "people's uprisings" where the citizens got a
hold of guns, the good guys lost. Vide Hungary in 1956 and
CheckoSlovakia in 1968. Afghanistan does not count, because
the Ruskies were an *invading force*. Afghanistan really didnot
have a government outside of Kabul. Even with the bravery of
the Mujihadeen, several million Afghanis fled to Pakistan and
those who remained are still fighting among them selves. It is
a classical Afghani Bushkazi that is taken place there.
I am sorry to tell you, it is *not* like Lexington & Concard,
it is more like Bosnia-Herzogovina, where all the males are
armed and killing women and children.
Some glorious revolution for liberty that is.
Now you know why I don't have the same Wrong and Wromantic
notions of the People arising in their Wrath and cleansing
the Republic of the Knaves who have subverted the Purity of
Our Bodily Essences.
In short, I read history, not invent it. It so happens that
our revolution was successful in that an armed yoemanry under
the leadership of very brilliant *thinkers* produced the longest
lasting republic in the written history of Mankind. Subsequent
revolutions, the French in 1789, the Russion in 1917 , the
Chinese in 1948 have produced abominations and tyranny the likes
of which the world has never seen. So much for the Magic of the
Gun. I don't deny for a second, that citizens need and ought to
be able to have firearms for defense of life & property, but
neither do I think for one second, that a bunch of macho assholes
running around in camoflage suits shooting semi-automatic rifles
are going to herald in the Jubilee and the end of the welfare
state.
The end of high tax welfarism will come about because the good little
sheep in this country catch on to the fleecing that they are
victim to and do a democrat overturn of the pernicous redistribution
philosophy that has been destroying this Republic. In short, my
friend, nothing but a return to Republican Virtue will suffice, and
all the guns in the world will not bring that about.
JIM GRAHAM
>In article <VEAL.544...@gateway.ce.utk.edu>,
>David Veal <VE...@gateway.ce.utk.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) writes:
>>>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>>>Let me check . . .
>>
>>>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>>>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
>>
>> *Cough*. Organizing and training as an armed body tends to
>>be rather ... illegal ... in most places.
>
>The exact wording of the Second Amendment on this subject is "well-regulated
>militia." The national guards qualify as such, and are indeed militias in
>are not. The NRA could theoretically declare itself to be a militia, but
>aside from that, there is no premise behind most of their arguments with
>respect to the Second Amendment.
As far as resistance against internal tyranny, it cannot logically be
applied to the national guard, since they are controlled by government.
The second applies to militias formed of citizens, who seek to fight
against tyranny, including that at home.
Simple.
Jim Graham
--
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
Note to the signature-impaired: This is not an NRA endorsement.
Jim Graham
gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Wayne J. Warf
>Frank Crary <fcr...@benji.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>And again, you have ignored the number of modern, well-armed government
>>that have fallen, despite all their aircraft and tanks, to rebels
>>that started out with nothing but rifles.
>
>You mean, such as Saddam Hussein at the hands of the Kurds?
Which didn't have guns...
> Such as Hitler's
>Germany at the hands of the French Resistance (alone)?
Which had very few guns...
>Such as the Chinese
>government at the hands of the protesters in Tianenman Square (you tell me
>what good rifles would have done those poor people)?
Come now, what good did it do *not* having them? It made it safer for
the Army thugs to kill 'em...GREAT!
>
>Take a tyrant at the top of the U.S. Government. What would he do if he wanted
>to forcibly suppress resistance? What would such a tyrant have access to? A
>particular city causing troubles? Nuke it.
And a 100 million decide to storm D.C. after seeing friends and family
incinerated...
>An area being used as a gathering
>place for rebels? Hit them with the largest chemical and biological weapons
>stocks in the world.
And poison his own supporters, food sources, and troops...
> Secret resistance? Bring in secret police.
Doing that now..
> Organized
>resistance? Bring in the carpet bombings, bring in the weapons of mass
>destruction, bring in the tanks, and leave them for the janitor who could
>by that time clean what's left of a given rebel off the streets with a mop.
>
Detroy your resources, supporters, families of your troops, encourage
massive defections from the armed forces along with their weapons,
convince military commanders to oppose you, drive the entire population
into the ranks of the insurgency...brilliant...
>Forget. If the arsenal at the disposal of our Federal government were to fall
>into the hands of a tyrant who was willing to use it to hold onto his seat of
>power, I have very little hope that men with rifles would stand a tax
>collector's chance at paradise against him/her (it?).
>
But you'd rather no chance at all...disgusting...
> __________________________________________________________________________
>|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
>|__________________________________________________________________________|
>I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy.
--
Wayne J. Warf -- WW...@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only, not IU
*<send request to receive or stop Indiana gun news mail to above address>*
Executive Committee member-Sycamore Valley Gun Club-10th and Range Rd
Bloomington, Indiana-Call for Range and Club Info: (812) 855-2701
Gregg Woodcock
> In article <CL36I...@optilink.com>,
> Clayton Cramer <cra...@optilink.dsccc.com> wrote:
> >You must have the ACLU copy of the Constitution. The text doesn't
> >that at all.
> Okay. This time I've got a direct copy of the Constitution on me (I'm posting
> this from the modem in my room, rather than verbatim in the library like the
> first one was).
> This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.
> "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."
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to being
> synonymous with "well regulated militia."
You describe only half the militia; the armed forces, National Guards,
and (loosely) the police which comprise the "organized" militia. As the
reference below shows,
United Stated Code (USC)
TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313
of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers
of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which
consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the
unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who
are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
the other half, the "unorganized" militia *explicitly* consists of armed
civilians. Furthermore, according to the (recently-repealed) Militia
Act of 1794, each member of the militia is *required* to keep a military
firearm at home, and practice regularly. Article I, section 8, clause
16 grants Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, ...." This is the real meaning of the term
"well regulated" in the Second Amendment; to enlist, educate, equip, and
otherwise enable the militia, not to restrict it.
Thus while Congress can organize and arm the militia, it is prevented
from disarming the people (presumably since the founding fathers foresaw
that the government would try to use the argument "if you want a gun,
join the organized militia; you don't need one") by the Second
Amendment. The Second Amendment was added to make clear that regulating
the militia did NOT include disarming the public; the militia clause is
included as a *justification for* NOT a *limitation upon* the proceeding
operative phrase. The congressional intent of the founders is clear.
Let us look at the original versions of the Second Amendment. In these
drafts, the right to bear arms was spelled out more elaborately than in
the compact final version. The intent of the founding fathers is made
quite clear.
Here is James Madison's original wording as proposed to the House on
June 8, 1789:
"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."
Here is the version that was modified by the House Commitee on
Amendments on June 17, 1789:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the
best security of free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall
be compelled to bear arms."
This is the draft proposal of the Bill of Rights to the U.S.
Constitution which contained 20 proposed amendments that were later
condensed and ratified as the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
This is the 17th of the original 20 amendments:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is
the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing
armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to
be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community
will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict
subordination to and governed by the Civil power."
The Second Amendment was written with the knowledge that the only way to
ensure the ability to overthrow a corrupt government is with armed force
(as the colonists did to the British). The founding fathers wanted to
make DARN SURE the people maintained this ability. The responsibility
to defend oneself from criminals and governments will never change with
time. Congress has the power (not "right", by the way, since
governments have no rights) to regulate the militia as long as those
regulations don't infringe on the "right of the people to keep and bear
arms."
Even if the *current* meaning of the word "militia" were as limited as
you would like it to be, it would not change what the meaning of it was
at the time the Second Amendment was written. At that time, the
"militia" included most (if not all) of the public. The Constitution
never uses the word "women" but frequently uses the word "men" (as in
"all men are created equal"). Does this mean that women were not
considered Americans by the founding fathers and therefore have no
rights? Maybe a future Supreme Court will decide that the Third
Amendment means that it's legal to forcibly lodge troops in private
homes, as long as they don't bring any quarters with them. Maybe they
will get sick of the Second Amendment defense and rule that it is OK to
take away our guns as long as they don't surgically amputate our arms.
Did you ever notice how the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights are
obviously limiting the powers of the government? Do you think the
Second Amendment would have been included if its intent was to do the
exact opposite and expand the government's powers? Perhaps, the
phrasing is merely unclear in "modern" english. Your semantic argument
is based on the grammatical correctness of interpreting the Second
Amendment to mean that *only* the militia has the right to keep and bear
arms. I challenge that this is incorrect. Suppose the Second Amendment
read:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed."
Would this mean that only those with college degrees are allowed to read
books? Obviously, the "well-schooled electorate" part of the sentence
is a subordinate phrase, not directly modifying the main clause. As
further proof (if english sentence structure is too much for you to
comprehend), it should be mentioned that during the process of forming
the Bill of Rights there was a proposal that the right to bear arms be
limited only to the Militia. That type of wording of the amendment was
soundly defeated, and is quite probably the reason we have such eloquent
quotes from our forefathers on the subject.
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government
should refuse, or rest in inferences."
-- Thomas Jefferson 1787-12-20
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and
wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and
court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that
what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and
carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
-- Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on
the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session
(February 1982)
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms
constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United
States as well as of the States."
-- US Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois
"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be
infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
country..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...
and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters
from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment
of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to
invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to
destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at
750, 17 August 1789
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an
American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-- Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house;
these altogether respect personal liberty..."
-- Senator William Grayson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of."
-- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7,
1789)