CCRKBA & SAF: Op-Ed by Alan Gottlieb : Celebrate Bill of Rights Day Dec. 15, and its Cornerstone, the 2nd Amendment
Mark2101
By Alan Gottlieb
Remarkable as it might seem, Dec. 15 frequently comes and goes unnoticed by
most Americans, yet it is a date commemorating the document that has made
this nation the benchmark against which all others are measured.
On that day in 1791 the Bill of Rights - the first ten Amendments to the
Constitution - was ratified. To put that in perspective, it took this nation
several years to adopt a Constitution, and more than a decade to produce the
Bill of Rights. Today, we should not expect emerging democracies to
accomplish the same thing overnight.
The Bill of Rights delineates certain individual rights guaranteed to all of
the people. Among those rights are freedom of assembly, religion, speech and
press; the right to legal counsel, due process, and privacy.
Perhaps the cornerstone to all of these is the right to keep and bear arms.
A careful reading of the Amendment and the history behind it establishes
beyond doubt that the Second Amendment was this nation's original "homeland
security" measure. The Amendment does not "grant" anything, but instead
affirms the right of arms to the people, and has been even more specifically
defined in some state constitutions as "the right of the individual citizen
to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
The Second Amendment was a guarantee of self-defense on the frontier, and of
the common defense against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is, as
some historians have observed, an "insurance policy" against the
establishment of a tyrannical government.
As the nation expanded and matured, the Second Amendment has hardly become
archaic. It is as fundamental today as it was two centuries ago, although
along the way, self-appointed "progressives," social engineers, and even
some lower courts have tried to obfuscate its meaning by inventing, through
some tortured logic, a "collective right" theory that clearly does not stand
up under scrutiny. "The people" referred to in the Second Amendment are the
same individual citizens alluded to in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth
Amendments.
Fortunately at this time of great peril, the right protected by the Second
Amendment is gaining back "lost ground" that had been eroded by zealous and
misguided legislation over the years. Forty-six states have laws that
guarantee citizens the right to carry a gun for their personal safety.
Thirty-eight of those states have "right-to-carry" laws that mandate
concealed carry licenses will be issued to all law-abiding citizens who want
them.
Several states have passed recognition statutes that honor all concealed
carry licenses issued by other states, or have adopted "reciprocity" laws by
which states agree to recognize licenses issued by cooperating states. Not
perfect, of course, but a good "first step" toward restoration of the right
of citizens to be safe not only in their own communities, but when they
travel.
The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the right of the Legislature to pass a
right-to-carry law. The Illinois Legislature overrode a governor's veto
recently to affirm the self-defense right of a citizen in his own home,
despite passage of local ordinances that would preclude such a right by
prohibiting the ownership of handguns.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to override the Washington, D.C. gun
ban. With the election of a more pro-gun rights Senate, that legislation may
pass in 2005 and be signed into law.
In September, history was made when a fundamentally flawed and statistically
unsuccessful federal gun control law - the ban on so-called "assault
weapons" - was allowed to expire. No law that makes it acceptable to ban
certain firearms is good, because it sets a precedent by which, under the
wrong circumstances and wrong leadership, it would be acceptable to ban
other firearms.
According to a recent Gallup survey, the public "has become more hesitant in
recent years to say gun laws should be made more strict."
Gun owners are a recognized voting bloc and a political force to be reckoned
with. Not surprisingly, those devoted to gun rights support all civil
rights. Many gun owners, and not just in the Red states, will celebrate Dec.
15 by purchasing a new gun. Others who can't afford a new gun will buy a box
of ammunition to show their support.
How will you celebrate this important anniversary?
Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, www.saf.org,
and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,
www.ccrkba.org.
**********************
Mark
"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."
--Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian,"
in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments
To The Federal Constitution,"
in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_
June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1
The Lone Weasel
news:yzbtd.137744$SW3.82796@fed1read01:
> Perhaps the cornerstone to all of these is the right to
> keep and bear arms.
Why don't you read what James Madison said about the "great
rights"? Your gunlobby propagandist will hate you for it...
[begin excerpt]
The first of these amendments, relates to what may be called
a bill of rights; I will own that I never considered this
provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to
make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was
added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a
certain form and to a certain extent, such a provision was
neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a
great number of the most respectable friends to the
government and champions for republican liberty, have
thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even
improper, nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think
it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of perhaps
by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge
the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against
the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great-
Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there
is too great a difference in the case to warrant the
comparison: therefore the arguments drawn from that source,
were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of
rights which that country has established, the truth is,
they have gone no farther, than to raise a barrier against
the power of the crown; the power of the legislature is left
altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great
rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty
of conscience, came in question in that body, the invasion
of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna
Charta does not contain any one provision for the security
of those rights, respecting which, the people of America are
most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of
conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are
unguarded in the British constitution.
Madison, House of Representatives, June 8, 1789
[end excerpt]
Tell Gottlieb the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights is more
likely "liberty of conscience" than the militia amendment.
I'm sure he'll appreciate that.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B827DE743l...@130.133.1.4...
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:yzbtd.137744$SW3.82796@fed1read01:
>
> > Perhaps the cornerstone to all of these is the right to
> > keep and bear arms.
>
> Why don't you read what James Madison said about the "great
> rights"? Your gunlobby propagandist will hate you for it...
[Madison's quote snipped for brevity]
Madison's point, as with other Federalists, was that the basic constitution
was strong enough. That these rights always were and always will be. Thus,
there was no point in outlining them in the constitution with a bill of
rights.
Another Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, in regards to the constitution and
adding a Bill of Rights proclaimed, "Here in strictness, the people
surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need for
particular reservations".
In the end Madison eventually agreed with the Antifederalists and drafted
the Bill of Rights on the idea, as then legal historian Bernard Schwartz put
it, "it at least could do no harm".
>
> Tell Gottlieb the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights is more
> likely "liberty of conscience" than the militia amendment.
>
> I'm sure he'll appreciate that.
>
Sorry, but the fact is, the second amendment is "the militia amendment".
That was the whole point of it. That was and has been clarified over and
over again in the debates by the authors at the time and has also been
clarified by historians and legal scholars ever since.
Mark
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plainmeaning of its text,
namely that it protects individual Americans
in their right to keep and bear arms
whether or not they are a member of a select militia
or performing active military service or training.
Second Amendment protects individual rights
We reject the collective rights
and sophisticated collective rights models
for interpreting the Second Amendment."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
October 16, 2001
Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and PARKER,
Circuit Judges.
krbc...@search26.com
The Lone Weasel
news:B0etd.137753$SW3.131682@fed1read01:
> message news:Xns95B827DE743l...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:yzbtd.137744$SW3.82796@fed1read01:
>>
>> > Perhaps the cornerstone to all of these is the right to
>> > keep and bear arms.
>>
>> Why don't you read what James Madison said about the
>> "great rights"? Your gunlobby propagandist will hate you
>> for it...
>
> [Madison's quote snipped for brevity]
[Madison's quote restored for clarity]
[begin excerpt]
[end excerpt]
> Madison's point, as with other Federalists, was that the
> basic constitution was strong enough.
Madison's point in the excerpt I posted was about "the great
rights" which, if personal gun rights were the cornerstone of
the Constitution, he would have probably mentioned "guns",
don't you think?
He mentions "the great rights" and "those choicest privileges"
but doesn't mention personal gun rights.
So why would Gottlieb lie about the Bill of Rights? The framer
of the US Bill of Rights never considered personal RKBA as one
of those rights at all. Madison tells you exactly what the
militia amendment's about:
[begin excerpt]
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.
[end excerpt]
It's about the militia, and in the early drafts it included a
"right of conscience" against military service.
So how does Gottlieb confuse that with his commercial gun
agenda?
That these rights
> always were and always will be. Thus, there was no point in
> outlining them in the constitution with a bill of rights.
Madison's selling the Bill of Rights to Federalists, who
thought it was a bad idea. He also notes that comparison of
the US Bill of Rights with Great Britain's is faulty; the
Englsh BoR only restrains the royal power with the legislature
unaffected.
Madison's main point in selling the BoR to Federalists is that
GB depends on the good intentions of its politicians to protect
the rights of the people, while the US BoR secures those rights
in law.
And when Madison refers to the "great rights":
"I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom
of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in
that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able
advocates...
"The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those
choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the
British constitution..."
Madison never mentions a personal rkba at all, not when he
introduced the Bill of Rights to the House on June 8, 1789; not
in the debates on the Bill of Rights that followed; he never
says the Bill of Rights has anything to do with personal rkba.
That's because that's always been a right provided by the
states under their power of internal police.
[begin excerpt]
We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections
of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the
other provisions of the constitution of the United States
relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is
the second amendment, which declares: '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.'
We think it clear that the sections under consideration,
which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as
military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in
cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe
the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a
conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment
prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that
the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of
congress and the national government, and not upon that of
the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S.
v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief
justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that
the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a
right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any
manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed,
but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall
not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments
that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the
national government, leaving the people to look for their
protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of
the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New
York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to
merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more
properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or
restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See,
also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How.
410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2
Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank,
1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews
v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
[end excerpt]
Would you like a verification of this fact that personal RKBA
are provided by the states, and not the Second Amendment?
[begin excerpt]
________________
Your memorialists might conclude their petition with these
observations, but the great importance of the proposed law,
not only in respect to the revenue and commercial prosperity
of the United States, but as it may affect the right of every
citizen to keep and bear arms, will, it is hoped, be their
excuse for subjoining a few additional observations on the
subject. The inhabitants of the United States have
immemorially claimed the right of possessing arms for the
defence of their houses, their lives, and property; this
privilege has neither been surrendered, nor abridged; and
every citizen, whether at home or upon the ocean has believed
that he might lawfully carry arms, in self defence. If this
right be deemed important in the bosom of the State, where
the laws and magistrates are ready to protect the citizen,
how much more important must it be considered upon the high
seas, where every nation has a common jusisdiction, but no
nation an exclusive one; where every nation is bound to
afford protection to the persons and property of its
citizens, but no nation has magistrates to grant it; where
aggression is most frequent, and the means of defence most
necessary!
Your memorialists are duly sensible that Congress possesses
the "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among
the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" but, with
all deference, they presume to inquire, whether, under this
power, a law may be enacted, by which the citizens of the
United States shall be deprived of a right, which has been
supposed to be secured to them by the constitutions of the
several States?
Your memorialists forbear to add, but humbly request, that
no law may be passed to prevent private vessels from sailing
in an armed condition - or, in case a law on this subject is
deemed necessary, that its provisions may be conformed to
the principles contained in the present memorial. And as in
duty they will ever pray.
By order of the Corporation of the Chamber of Commerce.
JOHN MURRAY, President.
New YORK, December 21, 1804.
American State Papers, Senate, 8th Congress, 2nd Session
Commerce and Navigation: Volume 1
Page 582, "Arming of Merchantmen"
[end excerpt]
>> Tell Gottlieb the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights is
>> more likely "liberty of conscience" than the militia
>> amendment.
>>
>> I'm sure he'll appreciate that.
I hope he does. You gunlobby shills need to answer for your
lies against the Constitution.
When do you plan on answering for your own lies against the
Constitution, Mark? How about right now?
____________________
A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined
which might come under the appellation of an "arm," in the
figurative use of that term, and which could by no
possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least
degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to
contend that a constitutional provision securing to the
citizens the means of their common defence should be
construed to extend to such weapons, although they
manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because,
in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?
The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the
wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety
of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized
warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The
right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a
great political right. It respects the citizens, on the one
hand, and the rulers on the other. And, although this right
must be inviolably preserved, yet it does not follow that
the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws
regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
To hold that the legislature could pass no law upon this
subject by which to preserve, prepare and protect our
citizens from the terror which a wanton and unusual
exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being
endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to
pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes,
and to make it a social evil of infinitely a greater extent
to society than would result from abandoning the right
itself.
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
Karl Hungus
message news:41B61D37...@hotmail.com...
> There's nothing "new" about us two "weasels", you lying sack of
> reasty maggot droppings.
> We've been occassionally posting to
> each other for several years
That's nice, Curtis. Be sure to use protection, you hear?
> you infected pustule of shabby
> goat droppings. Were it not for maliciously ignorant fools
> such as yourself, we'd happily be discussing physics and chemistry,
> because we remember when the "internet" was a small group of smart
> people gathered in front of 'dumb' terminals, instead of the
> other way around, as it is now..
And yet here you are, choosing or your own free will and volition to sling
mud with the best of 'em.
> --But, that's why you're known as an intentionally ignorant
> --right-wing 'tard, with the mental agility of a mollusk..
You mom's going to be pissed when her ISP yanks her account for *your*
shenanigans, Curtis.
Name Redacted
Yes! A "careful" reading adds a detail you skip over, something about
militias. Gun owners are, by owning a gun, volunteering for military
service...activite the buggers!
You Know Who
Dismembered!)" <kunt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You Blow Who? <right...@savvis.net> whined and snivelled at:
>>
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>
>> >"Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote:
>.....
>>Of course, [The Lone Weasel] believes Madison was referring to
>>the STATE'S right to have a free press, and the STATE'S right
>>to have a trial by a jury- one would be forced to assume[..]
>
>There you've again falsely "assumed" something
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Kunt?
>There's nothing "new" about us two "weasels", you
Awwww, I knew it was love at first sight- I can see you two leftist
lard-asses sitting there together, each on the opposite end of a Giant
Burrito...
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!) was detailing the lies, evasions and insinuations of:
> >
> >You Blow Who? <right...@savvis.net> whined and snivelled at:
> > >
> > > The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>"Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote:
> > [know], unless you've the usual retarded right-wing agenda of
> > misquoting anything to suit your maliciously ignorant pseudo-reasonings..
>
>Don't you ever get tired of being wrong[..]
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
*>LOL!<* <l>users like you make my day, dweebling..
> > Example follows..
> >
> > >Of course, [the Lone Weasel] and his new sidekick [Kurt Lochner][..]
> >
> > False, again.. Do you deliberately lie so poorly in the real world?
> >
> > There's nothing "new" about us two "weasels", you lying sack of
> > reasty maggot droppings. We've been occassionally posting to
> > each other for several years, you infected pustule of shabby
> > goat droppings. Were it not for maliciously ignorant fools
> > such as yourself, we'd happily be discussing physics and chemistry,
> > because we remember when the "internet" was a small group of smart
> > people gathered in front of 'dumb' terminals, instead of the
> > other way around, as it is now..
>
>Awwww, I knew it was love at first sight-
Hey, Tardo.. You're projecting again.. Seek help immediately,
at your earliest possible inconvenience, with police escorts..
>I can see you two leftist lard-asses sitting there together[..]
Ahhh, more musings from the prepubescent mental gnat who made the
mistake of expressing his right-wing retarded sociopathy as some
how more factual than the quote of Madison, regarding firearms..
--Thirteen more neurons and you'd make a nice mollusk..
Yardpilot
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B827DE743l...@130.133.1.4...
Psst. That's why they no longer exist there.
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:B0etd.137753$SW3.131682@fed1read01:
> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> > message news:Xns95B827DE743l...@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:yzbtd.137744$SW3.82796@fed1read01:
[useless diatribe snipped for brevity]
All you need to do to prove your point is find one, just one, of the
original debates on the second amendment where it was argued if the right
even existed. There is no such argument. It was understood, by both the
Federalists and Antifederalists, that it existed. It was just a matter of
why and how it should be acknowledged in the amendment. If you can produce
any of the debates in the drafting indicating that the right did not exist
you need to produce it now.
Mark
The Constitution preserves
"the advantage of being armed
which Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation...
(where) the governments are afraid
to trust the people with arms."
James Madison
The Federalist #46
Mark2101
"Name Redacted" <wny...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102457390.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Who skipped over that detail? Not I. But at least you recognize the militia
exists. That is something rare among those opposed to the second amendment.
Mark
You Know Who
Dismembered!)" <kunt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>right again. Ewwwwwwwww. I knew it. You and Jabba make a perfect couple.
>Nope
Yup. You're both fat and stupid. I wonder which one of you is, uh, you
know, primary. Ah forget it- I don't want to know.
You Know Who
<kunt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Have you stopped [..]
enjoying making you look like an idiot? It's easy with all the help
you give me, Kunt.
>>Awwww, I knew it was love at first sight-
>
>Hey, Tardo.. You're [..]
right again. Ewwwwwwwww. I knew it. You and Jabba make a perfect
couple.
>>I can see you two leftist lard-asses sitting there together[..]
>
>Ahhh, [...]
You find that thought comforting, don't you, you leftist poof?
Karl Hungus
news:qb6er0566t8flr8cm...@4ax.com...
I think you mean who's the pitcher and who's the catcher. But you're right,
we really don't want to know.
The Lone Weasel
news:Q0ztd.140485$SW3.89552@fed1read01:
> All you need to do to prove your point is find one, just
> one, of the original debates on the second amendment where
> it was argued if the right even existed. There is no such
> argument.
Yeah, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms wasn't
debated, dumbass; it was whether the state militias would be
disarmed by a corrupt Congress, when there was nothing
explicit in the body of the Constitution to prevent it.
Like Nadison said and you deleted for some self-serving
reason, it was a goofy notion that an American Frederich der
Grosse would be elected president and all the elected members
of Congress would also be so corrupt that they'd all conspire
to usurp state governments.
Now, here's what George Washington said about the militia,
and as you may recall Washington was a member of the VA
militia for many years rising through the ranks to eventually
become a general of militia, and then commander in chief of
the army during the Revolutionary War. See if you can
reconcile your gunlobby propaganda about the Second
Amendment, which was a militia amendment according to all
sane legal authorities until the NRA's modern disinformation
campaign began about 1960; and see if Washington's plan for
the militia reminds you of citizen soldiers today.
[begin excerpt]
Before I close my remarks on the establishment of our
National Militia, which is to be the future guardian of
those rights and that Independence, which have been
maintained so gloriously, by the fortitude and perseverance
of our Countrymen, I shall descend little more minutely to
the interior arrangements, and sum up what I have to say on
this head with the following Positions.
1st. That it appears to me extremely necessary there should
be an Adjutant General appointed in each State, with such
Assistants as may be necessary for communicating the Orders
of the Commander in Chief of the State, making the details,
Collecting the Returns and performing every other duty
incident to that Office. A duplicate of the Annual Returns
should always be lodged in the War Office by the 25th of
Decr. in every year, for the information of Congress; with
any other reports that may be judged expedient. The Adjutant
Generals and Assistants to be considered as the deputies of
the Inspector General, and to assist him in carrying the
system of Discipline into effect.
2d. That every Militia Officer should make himself
acquainted with the plan of Discipline, within a limited
time, or forfeit his Commission, for it is in vain to expect
the improvement of the Men, while the Officers remain
ignorant, which many of them will do, unless Government will
make and enforce such a Regulation.
3dly. That the formation of the Troops ought to be perfectly
simple and entirely uniform, for example each Regiment
should be composed of two Battalions, each Battalion to
consist of 4 Companies and each Company as at present of 1
Captain, 1 Lieutenant, 11 Ensign, 5 Sergeants, 3 Corporals,
2 Music, 65 Privates.
Two Battalions should form a Regiment four Regts a Brigade
and two Brigades a Division. This might be the general
formation; but as I before observed, I conceive it will be
eligible to select from the district forming a Regiment, the
flower of the young Men to compose an additional or light
Company to every Regiment, for the purposes before
specified, which undoubtedly ought to be the case unless
something like a Continental Militia shall be instituted. To
each Division two Troops of Cavalry and two Companies of
Artillery might also be annexed, but no Independent or
Volunteer Companies foreign to the Establishment should be
tolerated.
4thly. It is also indispensable that such a proportion of
the Militia (under whatever discription they are
comprehended) as are always to be held in readiness for
service, nearly in the same manner the Minute Men formerly
were, should be excercised at least from 12 to 25 days in a
year, part of the time in Company, part in Battalion and
part in Brigade, in the latter case, by forming a Camp,
their Discipline would be greatly promoted, and their Ideas
raised, as near as possible, to real service; Twenty five
days might be divided thus, ten days for training in squads,
half Companies and Companies, ten in Battalion and five in
Brigade.
5thly. While in the Field or on actual duty, there should
not only be a Compensation for the time thus spent, but a
full allowance of Provisions Straw, Camp Equipage &c; it is
also of so great consequence that there should be, a perfect
similarity in the Arms and Accoutrements, that they ought to
be furnished, in the first instance by the public, if they
cannot be obtained in any other way, some kind of
Regimentals or Uniform Clothing (however cheap or course
they may be) are also highly requisite and should be
provided for such occasions. Nor is it unimportant that
every Article should be stamped with the appearance of
regularity; and especially that all the Articles of public
property should be numbered, marked or branded with the name
of the Regiment or Corps that they may be properly accounted
for.
6thly. In addition to the Continental Arsenals, which will
be treated of under the next head. Every State ought to
Establish Magazines of its own, containing Arms,
Accoutrements, Ammunitions, all kinds of Camp Equipage and
Warlike Stores, and from which the Militia or any part of
them should be supplied whenever they are called into the
Field.
7thly. It is likewise much to be wished, that it might be
made agreeable to Officers who have served in the Army, to
accept Commands in the Militia; that they might be appointed
to them so far as can be done without creating uneasiness
and jealousy, and that the principle Characters in the
Community would give a countenance to Military improvements,
by being present at public reviews and exhibitions, and by
bringing into estimation amongst their fellow Citizens,
those who appear fond of cultivating Military knowledge and
who excel in the Exercise of Arms. By giving such a tone to
our Establishment; by making it universally reputable to
bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the
performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in
Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall
take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long
time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our
country.
[end excerpt]
Now, I know it would help your false advertising if you could
just delete portions of the Constitution that impede the sale
of more new guns, but if we decide that's not acceptable, can
you just acknowledge that your consistent lying about the
Constitution is bad for the morale of your ignorant gunloons
who for some reason believe the militia amendment grants them
a personal gun right?
Think it over, Murkatroid.
____________________
To make this view of the case still more clear, we may
remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky
constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has
already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section
of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this
state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay
an equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that
the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must
infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section,
which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man
in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his
rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be
said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be
said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk
or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.
So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court
in the case referred to, even upon the question it has
debated, is defective and inconclusive.
You Know Who
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>"Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:Q0ztd.140485$SW3.89552@fed1read01:
>
>> All you need to do to prove your point is find one, just
>> one, of the original debates on the second amendment where
>> it was argued if the right even existed. There is no such
>> argument.
>
>Yeah, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms wasn't
>debated, dumbass; it was whether the state militias would be
>disarmed by a corrupt Congress, when there was nothing
>explicit in the body of the Constitution to prevent it.
Which is why it says "people" not "state militias." Yeah, right,
Jabba.
>Like Nadison said and you deleted for some self-serving
>reason, it was a goofy notion that an American Frederich der
>Grosse would be elected president and all the elected members
>of Congress would also be so corrupt that they'd all conspire
>to usurp state governments.
Of course it's a goofy notion. That's why the 2A doesn't have anything
to do with protecting the states, except indirectly.
somd_j...@yahoo.com
The Lone Weasel wrote:
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:Q0ztd.140485$SW3.89552@fed1read01:
>
> > All you need to do to prove your point is find one, just
> > one, of the original debates on the second amendment where
> > it was argued if the right even existed. There is no such
> > argument.
>
> Yeah, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms wasn't
> debated, dumbass; it was whether the state militias would be
> disarmed by a corrupt Congress, when there was nothing
> explicit in the body of the Constitution to prevent it.
Could you please point out, from 18th century sources, where rights the
milita and state militias are actually mentioned.
Thanks.
Oh, and there's nothing explicit in the body of the Constitution to
prevent a corrupt Congress from dropping a nuke on your head, I guess
you'll be demanding a loony weasle protection amendment, eh.
Jim
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:Q0ztd.140485$SW3.89552@fed1read01:
>
> > All you need to do to prove your point is find one, just
> > one, of the original debates on the second amendment where
> > it was argued if the right even existed. There is no such
> > argument.
>
> Yeah, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms wasn't
> debated, dumbass; it was whether the state militias would be
> disarmed by a corrupt Congress, when there was nothing
> explicit in the body of the Constitution to prevent it.
>
Let me rephrase my question for clarity. Point out one, just one, of the
original debates on the second amendment where it was argued whether the
individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. There is no such
argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:8nLtd.142566$SW3.67549@fed1read01:
>> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:Q0ztd.140485$SW3.89552@fed1read01:
>>
>> > All you need to do to prove your point is find one, just
>> > one, of the original debates on the second amendment
>> > where it was argued if the right even existed. There is
>> > no such argument.
>>
>> Yeah, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms
>> wasn't debated, dumbass; it was whether the state militias
>> would be disarmed by a corrupt Congress, when there was
>> nothing explicit in the body of the Constitution to
>> prevent it.
>>
>
> Let me rephrase my question for clarity. Point out one,
> just one, of the original debates on the second amendment
> where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP
> AND BEAR ARMS even existed. There is no such argument.
That's exactly what I said. The reason is because they had
no business discussing personal gun rights in the federal
constitution, especially concerning the militia amendment.
You read about personal gun rights in state constitutional
contexts.
You're aware of these commonly understood facts, right?
Because I get the sense you don't really understand the
distinction between state gun rights and the Second
Amendment, whish is purely military.
________________
JOHN MURRAY, President.
_____
American State Papers, Senate, 8th Congress, 2nd Session
Commerce and Navigation: Volume 1
Page 582, "Arming of Merchantmen"
Thanks Leif!
You Know Who
Dismembered)" <kunt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Still with your immature insults and evasions, Gnarled?
If we didn't own you, Kunt- we'd have to invent you.
You Know Who
Dismembered!)" <kunt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Yup. You're both fat and stupid.
>
>*>LOL!<* Keep telling [..]
it like it is, Doughnut King.
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B9BB0789AAC...@130.133.1.4...
It was the point of the fourteenth amendment to make all the states respect
the rights, including the second, of all the people. If personal gun rights
were understood to be only a state right there would never have been a
fourteenth amendment. That was whole point of the fourteenth amendment The
fourteenth amendment required the states to acknowledge and adhere to all of
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Again, it was not in the debates to
ask if an individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State,
federal or otherwise.
I ask again, point out one, just one, of the original debates on the second
amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:p%Ttd.142668$SW3.132196@fed1read01:
All the states have always had state militias and Congress has
never disarmed them. Most states have provided a personal
rkba.
Success.
> If personal gun rights were understood to be
> only a state right there would never have been a fourteenth
> amendment. That was whole point of the fourteenth amendment
Mark you are a shameless fraud. Cite any of the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment saying that the Second Amendment is the
real reason we needed the Fourteenth Amendment.
Anybody here ever read the Fourteenth Amendment? I notice that
while you make up lies about it you don't actually post the
text of that amendment.
[begin excerpt]
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and the State wherein they
reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
[end excerpt]
Why don't you get a job with Wayne's old crew in the
televangelical racket, Mark? You're a shameless liar and
apparently could take anybody's money on false pretenses.
Just be a good little crook and leave the Constitution out of
it, okay slick?
You Know Who
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>All the states have always had state militias and Congress has
>never disarmed them.
Why would they? It's a resource for them.
>Most states have provided a personal rkba.
There is no state in this country that provides RKBA. Not one.
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > the states respect the rights, including the second, of all
> > the people.
>
> All the states have always had state militias and Congress has
> never disarmed them. Most states have provided a personal
> rkba.
>
> Success.
The disarming of freed blacks and the violations of blacks property rights,
among others, was just some of the reasons for the fourteenth amendment.
Congress, mostly Republicans, wanted it stopped.
>
> > If personal gun rights were understood to be
> > only a state right there would never have been a fourteenth
> > amendment. That was whole point of the fourteenth amendment
>
> Mark you are a shameless fraud. Cite any of the framers of the
> Fourteenth Amendment saying that the Second Amendment is the
> real reason we needed the Fourteenth Amendment.
Not just the second amendment but all rights.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE:
During the drafting of Fourteenth Amendment Senator Jacob Howard said in
regards to the Dred Scott decision and what the Fourteenth Amendment should
be "is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each
state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States? Is it not essential that all persons, whether citizens or
strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in
this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property"?
>
> Anybody here ever read the Fourteenth Amendment? I notice that
> while you make up lies about it you don't actually post the
> text of that amendment.
>
> [begin excerpt]
>
> FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
>
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
> States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
> citizens of the United States and the State wherein they
> reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
> abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
> United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
> life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
> deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
> protection of the laws.
>
> [end excerpt]
>
> Why don't you get a job with Wayne's old crew in the
> televangelical racket, Mark? You're a shameless liar and
> apparently could take anybody's money on false pretenses.
>
> Just be a good little crook and leave the Constitution out of
> it, okay slick?
I guess you missed the part "No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws".
I think that pretty much includes the second amendment in individual rights
terms.
The only "shameless fraud" and "shameless liar" is you trying to discard
what is clearly stated time and time again by the authors of the
Constitution and all of the Bill of Rights.
Mark
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
Proposed Virginia Constitution(1776),
Jefferson Papers 344,(J.Boyd,ed.1950)
The Lone Weasel
news:U69ud.1853$Ae.482@fed1read05:
>> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:p%Ttd.142668$SW3.132196@fed1read01:
>> >>
>> >
>> > It was the point of the fourteenth amendment to make all
>> > the states respect the rights, including the second, of
>> > all the people.
>>
>> All the states have always had state militias and Congress
>> has never disarmed them. Most states have provided a
>> personal rkba.
>>
>> Success.
>
> The disarming of freed blacks and the violations of blacks
> property rights, among others, was just some of the reasons
> for the fourteenth amendment. Congress, mostly Republicans,
> wanted it stopped.
Gee, Mark, I just did a Google search:
+disarm +"freed blacks"
And all the hits were just gunlobby propaganda.
Then I did another search:
+"freed blacks" +"property rights"
And got the typical jumble of webpages, but none of them having
anything to do with gun rights.
Then I combined the searches:
+"freed blacks" +"property rights" +disarm
And from 8 billion webpages indexed by Google, I got exactly
one hit:
http://www.clingendael.nl/cru/pdf/liberia.pdf
Conflict Policy Research Project (CPRP)
The Netherlands and Liberia
Dutch Policies and Interventions with respect to the Liberian
Civil War
Klaas van Walraven
Needless to say, not about the United States.
Okay dumbass, cite a source other than your own gunlobby
claptrap on the disarming of freed blacks. If it's really a
historical event there must be some independent record in some
legitimate history book, by a real historian...
Not Dr. Crammer...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
_____________________
“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.”
- Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Crimson, April 9, 2003.
Leif
President Johnson told Congress that denying states "the right to
protect themselves by the means of their own militia" was to violate
the Second Amendment. Agreeing with Thomas Jefferson, he viewed the
Second Amendment as a militia provision:
"The act of March 2, 1867, making appropriations for the support of the
army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,
contains provisions which interfere with the President's constitutional
functions as commander-in-chief of the army, and deny to States of the
Union the right to protect themselves by means of their own militia.
These provisions should be at once annulled; for while the first might,
in times of great emergency, seriously embarrass the Executive in
efforts to employ and direct the common strength of the nation for its
protection and preservation, the other is contrary to the express
declaration of the Constitution, that '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.'
"It is believed that the repeal of all such laws would be accepted by
the American people as at least a partial return to the fundamental
principles of the government, and an indication that hereafter the
Constitution is to be made the nation's safe and unerring guide. They
can be productive of no permanent benefit to the country, and should
not be permitted to stand as so many monuments of the deficient wisdom
which has characterized our recent legislation."
(President Andrew Johnson, State of the Union Address, Appendix to the
Congressional Globe, 40th Congress, 3rd Session, December 9, 1868)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=087/llcg087.db&recNum=428
The Lone Weasel
What the Alliance for Progress has come down to then is that
[the native rulers] can close down newspapers, abolish
Congress, fail religious opposition, and deport your
political enemies, and you'll get lots of help, but if you
fool around with a U.S. oil company, we'll cut you off
without a penny. Is that right?
It was no day at the beach answering that kind of question with
Bobby staring a hole through you.
By 1963, after the Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis and the cries
for escalation in Vietnam, Kennedy was moving toward the Sorenson-
Schlesinger side of the White House. By 1968, RFK was further to
the left than that, being hooked up with labor leaders like
Walter Reuther and Cesar Chavez. As Otis Chandler, a firm member
of the establishment, said after Bobby's death: "I guess there's
no one to stand up for the weak and the poor now." That memory is
now being replaced by those of RFK cavorting with Monroe on the
beach; of JFK drinking martinis with Monroe's buddy Giancana; and
the Kennedys tryi
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BB821ED4B5l...@130.133.1.4...
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:U69ud.1853$Ae.482@fed1read05:
> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:Xns95BA57E799075...@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:p%Ttd.142668$SW3.132196@fed1read01:
> >
There was disarming of blacks. It was one of many so called "Black Codes"
used to continue slavery in the south. In 1866 various southern white
militias, often "composed of Confederate veterans still wearing their gray
uniforms, frequently terrorized the black population, ransacking their homes
to seize shotguns and other property and abusing those refused to sign
plantation labor contracts".
No "gunlobby claptrap" here. These are remarks of Sen. Henry Wilson 39th
Congress 1866. Quoting from a Dec. 13 1865 letter from Colonel Samuel Thomas
to Major General O.O. Howard.
Also, As far as an individual right to bear arms under the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, Joel Tiffany's treatise, which became a basic handbook
for many Republicans, said this about the Fourteenth amendment and the
Constitution. "The colored citizen, under our Federal Constitution, has now
as full and perfect a right to keep and bear arms as any other; and no State
law, or State regulation has authority to deprive him of that right".
So much for your state rights only theory.
BTW: You still haven't answered my question. Point out one, just one, of the
original debates on the second amendment where it was argued whether the
individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:52eud.3880$Ae.3396@fed1read05:
> There was disarming of blacks. It was one of many so called
> "Black Codes" used to continue slavery in the south. In
> 1866 various southern white militias, often "composed of
> Confederate veterans still wearing their gray uniforms,
> frequently terrorized the black population, ransacking
> their homes to seize shotguns and other property and
> abusing those refused to sign plantation labor contracts".
> No "gunlobby claptrap" here. These are remarks of Sen.
> Henry Wilson 39th Congress 1866. Quoting from a Dec. 13
> 1865 letter from Colonel Samuel Thomas to Major General
> O.O. Howard.
One quote? That's what your theory's based on?
There's no question that blacks had been violently oppressed by
whites for centuries, or that whites assaulted the property
rights of recently freed blacks.
But if I recall, Crammer says whites outlawed cheap handguns so
blacks wouldn't be able to buy new guns. I haven't seen any
evidence of that.
It's time you proved your point instead of just posting another
time hoping I'm bored with your bullshit.
> Also, As far as an individual right to bear arms under the
> Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Joel Tiffany's
> treatise, which became a basic handbook for many
> Republicans, said this about the Fourteenth amendment and
> the Constitution. "The colored citizen, under our Federal
> Constitution, has now as full and perfect a right to keep
> and bear arms as any other; and no State law, or State
> regulation has authority to deprive him of that right".
Yeah, as citizens of a US state they'd have the same rights as
whites to own guns, and as US citizens they'd have the same
right to serve in the state militia, from which they were
barred by the Militia Act of 1792.
> So much for your state rights only theory.
You forgot about the racism written into the Militia Act of
1792 which was unconstitutional as soon as the 14th Amendment
was ratified, which insured blacks would be US citizens and so
eligible for militia duty.
Pretty obvious those those who don't have to lie about it,
isn't it Markie?
> BTW: You still haven't answered my question.
Yes, I have. There was much discussion of including a militia
amendment to the Constitution. See Eliot's Debates, dumbass.
No discussion of any personal right to have guns, which makes
sense because that was a state matter under their internal
police power. It wouldn't be discussed at ratifying
conventions for the Constitution, or in debates on amendments
to the Constitution.
But you'd need to understand that before you could effectively
lie about it, eh Markie?
___________________
In order to have a just and precise idea of the meaning of
the clause of the constitution under consideration, it will
be useful to look at the state of things in the history of
our ancestors, and thus comprehend the reason of its
introduction into our constitution.
By the act of 22 & 23 Car. II., ch. 25, sec. 3, it is
provided that no person who has not lands of the yearly
value of 100 pounds, other than the son and heir apparent of
an esquire, or other person of higher degree, etc., shall be
allowed to keep a gun, etc. By this act, persons of a
certain condition in life were allowed to keep arms, while a
large proportion of the people were entirely disarmed. But
King James II, by his own arbitrary power, and contrary to
law, disarmed the Protestant population, and quartered his
Catholic soldiers among the people. This, together with
other abuses, produced the revolution by which he was
compelled to abdicate the throne of England. William and
Mary succeeded him, and, in the first year of their reign,
Parliament passed an act recapitulating the abuses which
existed during the former reign, and declared the existence
of certain rights which they insisted upon as their
undoubted privileges. Among these abuses they say, in sec.
5, that he had kept a "standing army within the kingdom in
time of peace, without the consent of Parliament, and
quartered soldiers contrary to law." Sec. 6. "By causing
several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at
the same time when Papists were both armed and employed
contrary to law."
In the declaration of rights that follows, sec. 7 declares
that "the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for
their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by
law." This declaration, although it asserts the right of the
Protestants to have arms, does not extend the privilege
beyond the terms provided in the act of Charles II, before
referred to. "They may have arms," says the Parliament,
"suitable to their condition and as allowed by law." The
law, we have seen, only allowed persons of a certain rank to
have arms, and consequently this declaration of right had
reference to such only. It was in reference to these facts,
and to this state of the English law, that the 2d section of
the amendments to the constitution of the United States was
incorporated into that instrument. It declares that, "a
well-regu- lated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
In the same view the section under consideration of our own
bill of rights was adopted.
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
--
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> claptrap on the disarming of freed blacks. If it's really
> >> a historical event there must be some independent record
> >> in some legitimate history book, by a real historian...
> >>
> >> Not Dr. Crammer...
> >
> > There was disarming of blacks. It was one of many so called
> > "Black Codes" used to continue slavery in the south. In
> > 1866 various southern white militias, often "composed of
> > Confederate veterans still wearing their gray uniforms,
> > frequently terrorized the black population, ransacking
> > their homes to seize shotguns and other property and
> > abusing those refused to sign plantation labor contracts".
> > No "gunlobby claptrap" here. These are remarks of Sen.
> > Henry Wilson 39th Congress 1866. Quoting from a Dec. 13
> > 1865 letter from Colonel Samuel Thomas to Major General
> > O.O. Howard.
>
> One quote? That's what your theory's based on?
Well, that's all you asked for. You got it. But if want more, keep reading.
>
> There's no question that blacks had been violently oppressed by
> whites for centuries, or that whites assaulted the property
> rights of recently freed blacks.
If you knew this, then why did you demand I give an example? But like I
said, if you want more, keep reading.
>
> But if I recall, Crammer says whites outlawed cheap handguns so
> blacks wouldn't be able to buy new guns. I haven't seen any
> evidence of that.
After the Civil War, mass-production techniques led to a reduction in the
prices of many goods, including firearms. New among purchasers of handguns
and other guns were former slaves who, newly-freed, were entitled to
exercise the right to arms, long considered one of the features
distinguishing citizenship from servitude. As the Supreme Court had ruled in
Dred Scott v. Sanford (19 How. 393, 1857):
"It [citizenship] would give to persons of the negro race, who were
recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter
every other State whenever they pleased . . . and it would give them the
full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which
its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political
affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. . . ."
Efforts to prevent blacks from arming had a well-established history in the
United States. The French Black Code (1751) required Louisiana colonists to
stop and, "if necessary," beat "any black carrying any potential weapon. . .
." After Nat Turner`s rebellion, the Virginia legislature made it illegal
for free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military
weapon, or any powder or lead." Maryland considered dogs to be weapons, and
permitted any white to shoot any unlicensed dog owned by a free black.
Mississippi prohibited blacks from owning dogs. In 1834, Tennessee revised
Article XI, Section 26 of its Constitution to read "That the free white men
of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense,"
inserting the words "free white men" to replace "freemen," whose rights were
protected when the Constitution was ratified in 1796.12
After the Civil War, southern states enacted the Black Codes, which "fixed
the black population in serfdom, denying all political rights, excluding
them from virtually any chance at economic or social advancement Ğ and, of
course, forbidding them to own arms."13 Following ratification of the 14th
Amendment (1868) and enactment of the Civil Rights Act (1875), several
states passed laws race-neutral on their face, but not in their effect.
Attorney Robert Dowlut observed, "It does not matter that a law on its face
applies to all. A law will be deemed unconstitutional if the `the reality is
that the law`s impact falls on the minority.`" 14 Among these laws, the
forerunners of modern SNS legislation, was Tennessee`s "Army and Navy" law
(1879), which prohibited the sale of any "belt or pocket pistols, or
revolvers, or any other kind of pistols, except army or navy pistol" models,
among the most expensive, largest handguns of the day. The law thus
prohibited small derringers and rimfire revolvers that most Blacks could
afford. From 1915-1921, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, John K. Shields,
sponsored bills in Congress to impose an "Army/Navy" law nationwide.15
A law to prohibit the mailing of pistols (with a view to prevent mail orders
of SNSs by teenagers) was imposed by Congress in 1927. In 1968, Congress
imposed the Gun Control Act, which, among other things, included provisions
intended to stop the importation of SNSs16 [18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3)] and to
prohibit interstate mail order purchases of firearms [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3)].
The Act was ostensibly imposed in response to the assassinations of
President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King. But even supporters of "gun control" have recognized that there
was another purpose unspoken by the nation`s lawmakers. Anti-gun journalist
Robert Sherrill wrote that "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to
control guns but to control blacks. . . . Inasmuch as the legislation
finally passed in 1968 had nothing to do with the guns used in the
assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, it seems reasonable to assume
that the law was directed at that other threat of the 1960s, more
omnipresent than the political assassinĞnamely, the black rioter. . . . With
the horrendous rioting of 1967 and 1968, Congress again was panicked toward
passing some law that would shut off weapons access to blacks."17 B.
Bruce-Briggs noted, "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the
`Saturday night special` is emphasized because it is cheap and is being sold
to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidenceĞthe
reference is to `n[.....]-town Saturday Night.`"18
During the 1990s, low-income Blacks saw their right to arms threatened by
the Chicago public housing authorities and the Clinton Administration, which
suggested prohibiting residents of housing projects from possessing
firearms. Portland, Maine`s, housing authority imposed such a provision
during the 1970s, but it was overturned by the state Supreme Court in a case
brought forward with help from the NRA. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to review the Maine Court`s decision, thus letting it stand.19
The race-oriented history of many federal and state "gun control" laws is
one that has escaped the attention of many in the academic and civil rights
communities. Legal scholars Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond
observe, "The history of blacks, firearms regulations, and the right to bear
arms should cause us to ask new questions regarding the Second Amendment . .
. Much of the contemporary crime that concerns Americans is in poor black
neighborhoods and a case can be made that greater firearms restrictions
might alleviate this tragedy. But another, perhaps stronger case can be made
that a society with a dismal record of protecting a people has a dubious
claim on the right to disarm them. Perhaps a re-examination of this history
can lead us to a modern realization of what the framers of the Second
Amendment understood: that it is unwise to place the means of protection
totally in the hands of the state, and that self-defense is also a civil
right."20
>
> It's time you proved your point instead of just posting another
> time hoping I'm bored with your bullshit.
I would say it is you who needs to prove your point.
I ask again, point out one, just one, of the original debates on the second
amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
>
> > Also, As far as an individual right to bear arms under the
> > Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Joel Tiffany's
> > treatise, which became a basic handbook for many
> > Republicans, said this about the Fourteenth amendment and
> > the Constitution. "The colored citizen, under our Federal
> > Constitution, has now as full and perfect a right to keep
> > and bear arms as any other; and no State law, or State
> > regulation has authority to deprive him of that right".
>
> Yeah, as citizens of a US state they'd have the same rights as
> whites to own guns, and as US citizens they'd have the same
> right to serve in the state militia, from which they were
> barred by the Militia Act of 1792.
No, this clearly states "The colored citizen, under our Federal
Constitution, has now as full and perfect a right to keep and bear arms as
any other".
Maybe you missed that part as you conveniently miss so many others.
>
> > So much for your state rights only theory.
>
> You forgot about the racism written into the Militia Act of
> 1792 which was unconstitutional as soon as the 14th Amendment
> was ratified, which insured blacks would be US citizens and so
> eligible for militia duty.
> Pretty obvious those those who don't have to lie about it,
> isn't it Markie?
No, I was the one who pointed it out in the first place after you demanded I
prove this. Please try to keep track of this debate.
>
> > BTW: You still haven't answered my question.
>
> Yes, I have. There was much discussion of including a militia
> amendment to the Constitution. See Eliot's Debates, dumbass.
Really, were. Exactly where did you show that there was no such individual
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS .
> No discussion of any personal right to have guns, which makes
> sense because that was a state matter under their internal
> police power. It wouldn't be discussed at ratifying
> conventions for the Constitution, or in debates on amendments
> to the Constitution.
>
> But you'd need to understand that before you could effectively
> lie about it, eh Markie?
Wrong. It was understood by nature. That's why, as I previously pointed out,
they argued whether it was even necessary to clarify it in the Bill of
Rights.
All meaningless. This is a pre fourteenth Amendment decision from a rebel
state.
And you call me a "shameless fraud" and "shameless liar".
The Lone Weasel
news:Snyud.8572$Ae.2397@fed1read05:
>> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:52eud.3880$Ae.3396@fed1read05:
>> But if I recall, Crammer says whites outlawed cheap
>> handguns so blacks wouldn't be able to buy new guns. I
>> haven't seen any evidence of that.
>
> After the Civil War, mass-production techniques led to a
Let's just cite the NRA webpage, okay son?
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=61
> B. Bruce-Briggs
> noted, "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the
> `Saturday night special` is emphasized because it is cheap
> and is being sold to a particular class of people. The name
> is sufficient evidenceÐthe reference is to `n[.....]-town
> Saturday Night.`"18
Your entire argument hinges on this word you're afraid to
spell out. You'll have to dispense with ellipsis or concede
the argument right now, little shill.
When you gather the courage to spell out that racist phrase,
tell us who Bruce-Briggs is. And who published "Public
Interest" in the Fall of 1976, which is where this quote
comes from?
This guy's not a linguist, is he Markie? But he talks about
"evidence", he makes a "conclusion". Based on what
linguistic principle? Maybe Bruce-Briggs refers to the term
"saturday night social", fondly recalling cross burnings and
"lynching bees".
You have some explaining to do, little gunloon. You'd better
start with the actual word under consideration. Spell it
out, or just admit your argument is bogus.
________________
[Saturday 3.]
Saturday Night
1. Used attrib. of activities taking place on or as on a
Saturday night, esp. some form of revelry. [1847 H. Melville
Omoo xii. 49 The evening of the last day of the week was
always celebrated by what is styled on board of English
vessels, ‘The Saturday-night bottles’. Two of these were
sent down into the forecastle, just after dark.] 1896 ‘M.
Rutherford’ Clara Hopgood xii. 121 Saturday- night
drunkenness and looseness in the relations between the young
men and young women. [1938 G. Greene Brighton Rock iii. 124
‘Saturday,’ he thought, ‘today's Saturday,’ remembering the
room at home, the frightening weekly exercise of his parents
which he watched from his single bed. Ibid. vii. 320 The
Boy was shaken again with his nocturnal Saturday disgust. He
couldn't blame his father now.+ You couldn't even blame the
girl.] 1942 Berrey & Van den Bark Amer. Thes. Slang
§509/17 Saturday- night habit, week-end habit, indulgence in
small amounts of narcotics at irregular intervals. 1951
Evening Sun (Baltimore) 27 Mar. 4/1 The graduate ‘hype’ was
a ‘student’ or ‘hoosier fiend’ who ‘dabbled’ with drugs
occasionally. He had what is known as ‘chippy habit’, a
‘Saturday night habit’, or an ‘ice cream habit’. 1963 R. I.
McDavid Mencken's Amer. Lang. xi. 742 Most cats consider it
necessary to probe the mystic depths with the assistance of
wine, a joint of pot+, peyote buttons and large infusions of
invigorating jazz music-+in any event indulged in with
friends as part of the Saturday night kicks. 1964 New
Statesman 17 Apr. 606/2 Is the Saturday-night blind+any less
characteristic of the modern urbanised proletariat than of
the traditional rural peasantry? 1976 N.Y. Times Mag. 10
Oct. 111/2 [In the southern States of the U.S.] there were
all those cross burnings, lynching bees and Sairday Nite
Socials.
2. spec. attrib. uses: Saturday night palsy or paralysis,
temporary local paralysis of the arm, esp. wrist drop, after
it has rested on a hard edge for a long time, as during
sleep following a bout of drinking (colloq.); Saturday night
pistol (U.S. colloq.) = Saturday night special; Saturday
night soldier, a member of a volunteer army, as opp. a
regular soldier; Saturday night special (U.S. colloq.), a
cheap, low-calibre pistol or revolver such as might be used
by a petty criminal. 1927 I. S. Wechsler Textbk. Clin.
Neurol. iii. 249 The frequent occurrence of wrist drop in
alcoholics who fall asleep and lean heavily on the arm has
given rise to the common designation of ‘Saturday night
palsy’. 1942 Sun (Baltimore) 23 Apr. 22/2 A similar ailment
is called ‘shelter paralysis’-formerly known as ‘Saturday
night paralysis’ because its victims were generally payday
tipplers. 1951 E. Paul Springtime in Paris xii. 216 Berthe
was suffering from what is known in the United States as
Saturday-night paralysis,+when drunken men go to sleep in
gutters, with one arm across a sharp kerbstone. 1974
Passmore & Robson Compan. Med. Stud. III. xxxiv. 35/1 Wrist
drop thus produced is known as a ‘Saturday night palsy’.
1929 M. A. Gill Underworld Slang, Saturday night pistol, 25
automatic.
1917 A. G. Empey Over Top 311 ‘Terrier’, Tommy's nickname
for a Territorial or ‘Saturday-night soldier’. 1974
Maclean's Mag. Oct. 30/1 My husband was a Saturday Night
soldier, the militia, and he couldn't wait for the war and
when it started, zoom, he was called up and then he was
happy.
1968 N.Y. Times 17 Aug. 1/1 Title IV of that law bans the
importation of the cheap, small-caliber ‘Saturday night
specials’ that are a favorite of holdup men. 1976 Pioneer
(Big Timber, Montana) 30 June 4/2 A ban on ‘Saturday Night
Special’ handguns. 1977 C. McFadden Serial xlvi. 98/1 I'm
not packing a Saturday-night special, really.
Hence Saturday nighter, a person who attends an
entertainment on a Saturday night; Saturday-night v. intr.,
to spend a Saturday night in enjoyment or revelling. 1962 D.
Lessing Golden Notebk. iv. 462 The fellows were out
Saturday- nighting true-hearted, the wild-hearted Saturday-
night gang of true friends. 1966 Listener 24 Mar. 422/2 The
Korean script announced that Dr No was showing inside. So he
was+and half the population of Korea was inside, too+all of
us lapping up James Bond like Surbiton Saturday nighters.
- OED, 2nd Edition
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BC5538CCFFB...@130.133.1.4...
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:Snyud.8572$Ae.2397@fed1read05:
> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:Xns95BB592F6F78C...@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:52eud.3880$Ae.3396@fed1read05:
>
>
> >> But if I recall, Crammer says whites outlawed cheap
> >> handguns so blacks wouldn't be able to buy new guns. I
> >> haven't seen any evidence of that.
> >
> > After the Civil War, mass-production techniques led to a
>
> Let's just cite the NRA webpage, okay son?
>
> http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=61
There sources are all there. You are more than welcome to check them out.
>
> > B. Bruce-Briggs
> > noted, "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the
> > `Saturday night special` is emphasized because it is cheap
> > and is being sold to a particular class of people. The name
> > is sufficient evidenceÐthe reference is to `n[.....]-town
> > Saturday Night.`"18
>
> Your entire argument hinges on this word you're afraid to
> spell out. You'll have to dispense with ellipsis or concede
> the argument right now, little shill.
The author is trying to be politically correct and you use this as evidence
that the whole argument is wrong? You are reaching.
>
> When you gather the courage to spell out that racist phrase,
> tell us who Bruce-Briggs is. And who published "Public
> Interest" in the Fall of 1976, which is where this quote
> comes from?
>
> This guy's not a linguist, is he Markie? But he talks about
> "evidence", he makes a "conclusion". Based on what
> linguistic principle? Maybe Bruce-Briggs refers to the term
> "saturday night social", fondly recalling cross burnings and
> "lynching bees".
You evidence is?
>
> You have some explaining to do, little gunloon. You'd better
> start with the actual word under consideration. Spell it
> out, or just admit your argument is bogus.
No, It is you that has "some explaining to do". Like stop avoiding my
question and answer it. I ask again, point out one, just one, of the
original debates on the second amendment where it was argued whether the
individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
otherwise. There is no such argument.
>
I have no idea why you posted this useless bit of tripe. Please try to keep
on track with the issue. Now answer my question. Point out one, just one, of
the original debates on the second amendment where it was argued whether the
individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:r3Kud.16039$Ae.1864@fed1read05:
Where's your linguistic evidence that Bruce-Briggs'
"niggertown saturday night" has a direct relationship to
"saturday night special", Mark? Nobody has ever brought a
shred of evidence of that, and yet that's your claim.
I think it proves you're a bunch of ignorant gunloons who are
now exposed as racists, because you made a connection between
"niggertown" and "saturday night" and cheap handguns in your
own mind.
So you're all racists and you can't prove otherwise without
specific, rigorous linguistic evidence to prove your
assumption.
And that evidence does not exist, you racist gunwhore.
>> When you gather the courage to spell out that racist
>> phrase, tell us who Bruce-Briggs is. And who published
>> "Public Interest" in the Fall of 1976, which is where this
>> quote comes from?
>>
>> This guy's not a linguist, is he Markie? But he talks
>> about "evidence", he makes a "conclusion". Based on what
>> linguistic principle? Maybe Bruce-Briggs refers to the
>> term "saturday night social", fondly recalling cross
>> burnings and "lynching bees".
>
> You evidence is?
There's no etymology, just Bruce-Briggs, you pathetic dunce.
>> You have some explaining to do, little gunloon. You'd
>> better start with the actual word under consideration.
>> Spell it out, or just admit your argument is bogus.
>
> No, It is you that has "some explaining to do". Like stop
> avoiding my question and answer it. I ask again, point out
> one, just one, of the original debates on the second
> amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT
> TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
> otherwise. There is no such argument.
>> [Saturday 3.]
That's because you're a moron, Markie.
Does anybody at the NRA have a linguistically refereed
etymology for that word you, as a racist, are afraid to spell
but dishonestly bring to the argument to sell more new guns?
> Please try to keep on track with the issue. Now answer my
> question. Point out one, just one, of the original debates
> on the second amendment where it was argued whether the
> individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State,
> federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
That's because the right was always collective until the 19th
century, you ignorant gunlobby whore.
So I guess you lose both arguments. You're not only wrong on
the Second Amendment, you're also a blithering racist
gunlobby shill. They apparently go together...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
__________________
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.
From the Madison Resolution, June 8, 1789.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > this as evidence that the whole argument is wrong? You are
> > reaching.
>
> Where's your linguistic evidence that Bruce-Briggs'
> "niggertown saturday night" has a direct relationship to
> "saturday night special", Mark? Nobody has ever brought a
> shred of evidence of that, and yet that's your claim.
Where's your evidence it isn't? It seems to be common knowledge except in
your mind.
>
> I think it proves you're a bunch of ignorant gunloons who are
> now exposed as racists, because you made a connection between
> "niggertown" and "saturday night" and cheap handguns in your
> own mind.
>
> So you're all racists and you can't prove otherwise without
> specific, rigorous linguistic evidence to prove your
> assumption.
>
> And that evidence does not exist, you racist gunwhore.
>
> >> When you gather the courage to spell out that racist
> >> phrase, tell us who Bruce-Briggs is. And who published
> >> "Public Interest" in the Fall of 1976, which is where this
> >> quote comes from?
> >>
> >> This guy's not a linguist, is he Markie? But he talks
> >> about "evidence", he makes a "conclusion". Based on what
> >> linguistic principle? Maybe Bruce-Briggs refers to the
> >> term "saturday night social", fondly recalling cross
> >> burnings and "lynching bees".
> >
> > You evidence is?
>
> There's no etymology, just Bruce-Briggs, you pathetic dunce.
The fact that all you can do is call me names and make up ridiculous
accusations is proof of your lack of any substantive argument. Insults and
crying racist are always the last effort of the losing side.
The fact that all you can do is call me names and make up ridiculous
accusations is proof of your lack of any substantive argument. Insults and
crying racist are always the last effort of the losing side.
>
> Does anybody at the NRA have a linguistically refereed
> etymology for that word you, as a racist, are afraid to spell
> but dishonestly bring to the argument to sell more new guns?
Pointing out the racists roots of gun control is to sell more guns?
How so?
>
> > Please try to keep on track with the issue. Now answer my
> > question. Point out one, just one, of the original debates
> > on the second amendment where it was argued whether the
> > individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State,
> > federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
>
> That's because the right was always collective until the 19th
> century, you ignorant gunlobby whore.
Wrong. It was understood by nature. That's why, as I previously pointed out,
they argued whether it was even necessary to clarify it in the Bill of
Rights.
>
> So I guess you lose both arguments. You're not only wrong on
> the Second Amendment, you're also a blithering racist
> gunlobby shill. They apparently go together...
The fact that all you can do is call me names and make up ridiculous
accusations is proof of your lack of any substantive argument. Insults and
crying racist are always the last effort of the losing side.
>
> Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
>
I grow tired of your childish antics. Answer my question or I must assume
you are only grappling for anything to save face.
I ask again, point out one, just one, of the original debates on the second
amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:BdRud.20927$Ae.9728@fed1read05:
>> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:r3Kud.16039$Ae.1864@fed1read05:
>>
>> > The author is trying to be politically correct and you
>> > use this as evidence that the whole argument is wrong?
>> > You are reaching.
>>
>> Where's your linguistic evidence that Bruce-Briggs'
>> "niggertown saturday night" has a direct relationship to
>> "saturday night special", Mark? Nobody has ever brought a
>> shred of evidence of that, and yet that's your claim.
>
> Where's your evidence it isn't? It seems to be common
> knowledge except in your mind.
I have the OED; "tripe" according to you. It's pretty
fucking great tripe, Markie. Your racist pals like Bruce
Briggs probably mistook "saturday night special" with
"saturday night social", intentionally mistook it of course.
So you're all busted for being shameless racists and idiot
hucksters. Benny Hinn would be ashamed of your tawdry
performance.
Okay, your turn Markup. Provide your linguistic evidence
that saturday night special has any kind of racist word
orgin.
>> I think it proves you're a bunch of ignorant gunloons who
>> are now exposed as racists, because you made a connection
>> between "niggertown" and "saturday night" and cheap
>> handguns in your own mind.
>>
>> So you're all racists and you can't prove otherwise
>> without specific, rigorous linguistic evidence to prove
>> your assumption.
>>
>> And that evidence does not exist, you racist gunwhore.
You're so terrified of being found out as a racist that you
wouldn't spell-out "niggertown" - but gleefully used the
ellipseed word which all your pals would be sure to know, eh
Markoid?
It's a dead giveaway of your complicity.
>> >> When you gather the courage to spell out that racist
>> >> phrase, tell us who Bruce-Briggs is. And who published
>> >> "Public Interest" in the Fall of 1976, which is where
>> >> this quote comes from?
>> >>
>> >> This guy's not a linguist, is he Markie? But he talks
>> >> about "evidence", he makes a "conclusion". Based on
>> >> what linguistic principle? Maybe Bruce-Briggs refers
>> >> to the term "saturday night social", fondly recalling
>> >> cross burnings and "lynching bees".
>> >
>> > You evidence is?
>>
>> There's no etymology, just Bruce-Briggs, you pathetic
>> dunce.
>
> The fact that all you can do is call me names and make up
> ridiculous accusations is proof of your lack of any
> substantive argument. Insults and crying racist are always
> the last effort of the losing side.
You have nothing, you ridiculous ignoramus. You lose.
This is your last ditch and you're laying face down in it, eh
Murkwad?
Does the NRA know you're a complete washout as a
propagandist? And you misplaced the next official lie to add
to the stack of lies covering your gunlobby's ass about this
"niggertown saturday night special" scandal?
It's quite a scandal to invent a racist phrase just to sell
more cheap handguns. How will you cover ass for yourself and
the NRA, where we found this claptrap, Markie?
>> Does anybody at the NRA have a linguistically refereed
>> etymology for that word you, as a racist, are afraid to
>> spell but dishonestly bring to the argument to sell more
>> new guns?
>
> Pointing out the racists roots of gun control is to sell
> more guns? How so?
Racism sells more guns than wars, doesn't it Mark?
So when you boys invented this racist lie you put the scare
in good ole white boys all over the country. Black people
are armed. White people need to buy more new guns to keep
the black gunloons under control. It's just like the old
slave patrol days but now the black folks have guns, not just
shovels and hoes.
And that's good for gun sales, isn't it?
>> > Please try to keep on track with the issue. Now answer
>> > my question. Point out one, just one, of the original
>> > debates on the second amendment where it was argued
>> > whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even
>> > existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no such
>> > argument.
>>
>> That's because the right was always collective until the
>> 19th century, you ignorant gunlobby whore.
>
> Wrong. It was understood by nature.
Well if nature understood it why can't nature show us anybody
in the debates on the Second Amendment saying anything at all
about this natural personal gun right which was already
provided by the states, Mark-o-loon?
Your argument seems to be that because the Second Amendment
was purely military, we should infer a personal right because
you need to sell more new guns.
Doesn't work that way, son. You just lose.
I just win again...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
__________________
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BDAE8FD385l...@130.133.1.4...
You have become completely incoherent in your rants. Nothing but insults and
race card baiting left. Thank you for showing me and everyone else that you
are mentally unstable, to say the least. You can redeem yourself by at last
answering my question. Point out one, just one, of the original debates on
the second amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO
KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no
such argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:BPTud.21501$Ae.13803@fed1read05:
> You have become completely incoherent in your rants.
> Nothing but insults and race card baiting left.
You can easily dispose of the race card, Markwad. Just admit
there's nothong racist about the term Saturday Night Special
or about regulating cheap handguns.
Thank you
You are so very welcome, shill. Contact your benevolent
gunlobby overlords and tell them the Saturday Night Special
disinformation campaign is now counterproductive.
When the NRA deletes their Saturday Night Special page I'll
stop calling you a disgusting racist liar. That's fair,
isn't it Mark-vac?
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Nothing but insults and race card baiting left.
>
> You can easily dispose of the race card, Markwad. Just admit
> there's nothong racist about the term Saturday Night Special
> or about regulating cheap handguns.
>
> Thank you
>
> You are so very welcome, shill. Contact your benevolent
> gunlobby overlords and tell them the Saturday Night Special
> disinformation campaign is now counterproductive.
>
> When the NRA deletes their Saturday Night Special page I'll
> stop calling you a disgusting racist liar. That's fair,
> isn't it Mark-vac?
>
Try
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=137
yes it's from the NRA fact sheet. All sources included. It is up to you to
refute it.
BTW: You still have not answered my question. Point out one, just one, of
the original debates on the second amendment where it was argued whether the
individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...
disarm only those who are neither inclined
nor determined to commit crimes...
Such laws make things worse for the
assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than to
prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence
than an armed man.
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book,"
1774-1776,
quoting from On Crimes and Punishment,
by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
The Lone Weasel
news:Ej_ud.21529$Ae.3941@fed1read05:
>
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> message
> news:Xns95BD622737DDB...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:BPTud.21501$Ae.13803@fed1read05:
>>
>> > You have become completely incoherent in your rants.
>> > Nothing but insults and race card baiting left.
>>
>> You can easily dispose of the race card, Markwad. Just
>> admit there's nothong racist about the term Saturday Night
>> Special or about regulating cheap handguns.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> You are so very welcome, shill. Contact your benevolent
>> gunlobby overlords and tell them the Saturday Night
>> Special disinformation campaign is now counterproductive.
>>
>> When the NRA deletes their Saturday Night Special page
>> I'll stop calling you a disgusting racist liar. That's
>> fair, isn't it Mark-vac?
>>
>
> Try
> http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=137
Yeah, I already posted the url for you, dumbass.
Now, explain how you get any racist origin from the term
"Saturday Night Special", knowing as you do now that the
racist term "Saturday Night Social", which means an attack by
usually disguised racists against black people, is so close
to your chosen and more blatantly racist precursor,
"Niggertown Saturday Night."
See, your gunlobby's linguistic choices are far more
revealing of racism than the term they tried to charge with
racist meaning. Don't you think that's interesting,
Poodwaddle?
> yes it's from the NRA fact sheet. All sources included. It
> is up to you to refute it.
>
> BTW: You still have not answered my question. Point out
I didn't have to answer your loaded question but I did answer
it and kicked your stupid ass with it.
Now tell us where in the world you got the racist notion that
Saturday Night Special has a racist origin; or just keep
running...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
_____________________
“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.”
- Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Crimson, April 9, 2003.
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
No, you didn't answer my question. Again I ask. Point out one, just one, of
The Lone Weasel
news:EG%ud.21536$Ae.10573@fed1read05:
I answered it several times Markwad.
Now it's time to dispense with the typical gunlobby evasion
of facts and tell everybody why your gunlobby heroes
concocted a racist attack against liberals and centrists who
support reasonable gun control.
> Again I ask. Point out
> one, just one, of the original debates on the second
> amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT
> TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
> otherwise. There is no such argument.
How many times do I have to post it? As many times as you
can delete it, eh little gunlobby stooge?
Now explain how your racist misuse of the term Saturday Night
Special deserves anything besides condemnation.
As a racist supporter yourself, you must have smiled at the
similarity of "Saturday Night Special" to "Saturday Night
Social", right Markwad? And you knew by assigning fake
racist origins to "Saturday Night Special" you'd sell lots
more of those cheap handguns to poor whites.
BTW, you don't have any reliable sales statistics that show
either blacks or whites buy Saturday Night Specials with
greater frequency, do you? It's probably lower income people
rather than any particular racial group that buys less
expensive guns more often, right? And they'll be more likely
to buy USED guns, which is exactly what the gun industry
fears most.
So they get racist on the sales pitch. They play white fears
off black stereotypes; black fears off white stereotypes.
Sell more new cheap handguns.
_______________
THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE NRA - DEDICATION
"If we win, we'll have a president, with at least one of the
people that's running, a president where we work out of
their office. Unbelievably friendly relations..."
- NRA First Vice President Kayne Robinson telling members in
California that the group enjoyed "unbelievably friendly
relations" with Bush.
By Patricia Wilson
Reuters, 5/4/00
JM
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
To a Democrat that is total confiscation!!!!
And that is stupid!!
Every city that has made owning a firearm illegal has had their crime rate
go up!!!
What makes you so afraid of a gun "could it be when you are trying to break
into
my house that I might shoot you????
Answer that one!!!
There are more people killed in Bicycle accidents than by guns!!!
Should they be made illegal also?????
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:EG%ud.21536$Ae.10573@fed1read05:
>
> >
> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> > message
> > news:Xns95BD6FD51F4F4...@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:Ej_ud.21529$Ae.3941@fed1read05:
> >>
> >> >
> >
>
> I answered it several times Markwad.
>
> Now it's time to dispense with the typical gunlobby evasion
> of facts and tell everybody why your gunlobby heroes
> concocted a racist attack against liberals and centrists who
> support reasonable gun control.
You can not prove this. Nobody "concocted a racist attack against liberals
and centrists who support reasonable gun control".
But we all know what your definition of "reasonable gun control" is.
>
> > Again I ask. Point out
> > one, just one, of the original debates on the second
> > amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT
> > TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
> > otherwise. There is no such argument.
>
> How many times do I have to post it? As many times as you
> can delete it, eh little gunlobby stooge?
You have not posted one of the original debates on the second amendment
where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT
TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no
such argument.
>
> Now explain how your racist misuse of the term Saturday Night
> Special deserves anything besides condemnation.
>
> As a racist supporter yourself, you must have smiled at the
> similarity of "Saturday Night Special" to "Saturday Night
> Social", right Markwad? And you knew by assigning fake
> racist origins to "Saturday Night Special" you'd sell lots
> more of those cheap handguns to poor whites.
You can continue to cry racism all you want. It doesn't make it so. The race
card is last ditch effort of losing argument.
>
> BTW, you don't have any reliable sales statistics that show
> either blacks or whites buy Saturday Night Specials with
> greater frequency, do you? It's probably lower income people
> rather than any particular racial group that buys less
> expensive guns more often, right? And they'll be more likely
> to buy USED guns, which is exactly what the gun industry
> fears most.
I don't remember claiming blacks or whites bought Saturday Night Specials
with greater frequency. Where did you get that? I did point out that the
origins of gun control are racist.
> So they get racist on the sales pitch. They play white fears
> off black stereotypes; black fears off white stereotypes.
>
> Sell more new cheap handguns.
You have evidence of this?
BTW: You still have not answered my question. Again I ask. Point out one,
just one, of the original debates on the second amendment where it was
argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed.
State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:2o6vd.21660$Ae.15810@fed1read05:
>> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:EG%ud.21536$Ae.10573@fed1read05:
>> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
>> >> news:Ej_ud.21529$Ae.3941@fed1read05:
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, you didn't answer my question.
>>
>> I answered it several times Markwad.
>>
>> Now it's time to dispense with the typical gunlobby
>> evasion of facts and tell everybody why your gunlobby
>> heroes concocted a racist attack against liberals and
>> centrists who support reasonable gun control.
>
> You can not prove this. Nobody "concocted a racist attack
> against liberals and centrists who support reasonable gun
> control".
The gunlobby did it.
> But we all know what your definition of
> "reasonable gun control" is.
There you go again. You say reasonable gun control is no gun
control. I say reasonable gun control is some gun control.
Your position is not reasonable. Mine is.
>> > Again I ask. Point out
>> > one, just one, of the original debates on the second
>> > amendment where it was argued whether the individual
>> > RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal
>> > or otherwise. There is no such argument.
>>
>> How many times do I have to post it? As many times as you
>> can delete it, eh little gunlobby stooge?
>
> You have not posted one of the original debates on the
> second amendment where it was argued whether the individual
> RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
> otherwise. There is no such argument.
I've podted them, Krulick's posted them, Leif's posted them,
and you delete them.
See Eliot's Debates. Search for "militia". Tons of of it. Do
your own homework, deleter.
>> Now explain how your racist misuse of the term Saturday
>> Night Special deserves anything besides condemnation.
>>
>> As a racist supporter yourself, you must have smiled at
>> the similarity of "Saturday Night Special" to "Saturday
>> Night Social", right Markwad? And you knew by assigning
>> fake racist origins to "Saturday Night Special" you'd sell
>> lots more of those cheap handguns to poor whites.
>
> You can continue to cry racism all you want. It doesn't
> make it so. The race card is last ditch effort of losing
> argument.
Not this time. You boys used racism to promote gun sales.
Bad idea.
>> BTW, you don't have any reliable sales statistics that
>> show either blacks or whites buy Saturday Night Specials
>> with greater frequency, do you? It's probably lower
>> income people rather than any particular racial group that
>> buys less expensive guns more often, right? And they'll
>> be more likely to buy USED guns, which is exactly what the
>> gun industry fears most.
>
> I don't remember claiming blacks or whites bought Saturday
> Night Specials with greater frequency. Where did you get
> that? I did point out that the origins of gun control are
> racist.
The false description of gun control laws that regulate
Saturday Night Specials as racist, and the name Saturday Night
Special as having racist origins, is racist; it uses racism as
a marketing ploy. For that you must confess in public and stop
using racist marketing campaigns.
Starting tomorrow.
>> So they get racist on the sales pitch. They play white
>> fears off black stereotypes; black fears off white
>> stereotypes.
>>
>> Sell more new cheap handguns.
>
> You have evidence of this?
>
> BTW: You still have not answered my question. Again I ask.
> Point out one, just one, of the original debates on the
> second amendment where it was argued whether the individual
> RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
> otherwise. There is no such argument.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html
search: "militia"
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/llac_browse.html
Check out all the page headings that have something to do with
the militia. That's what I did.
Search Google Groups for our previous posts, I don't intend to
keep reposting text until it's drained of meaning. If you
insist on remaining ignorant to protect your position with the
gunlobby, go right ahead. But you'll have nothing to bitch
about when we post facts that prove you wrong.
Like, recently I said the government began arming the militia
soon after the War of 1812, and one of your gunloons challenged
my statement. I ignored the challenge because I knew my
statement was true, but tonoght I just happened on this,
browsing Annals of Congress subject headers:
[begin text]
Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 17th Congress,
2nd Session Pages 433 & 434 December 20, 1822
ARMING MILITIA WITH RIFLES.
Mr. WRIGHT submitted the following
Resolved, That the Committee on the Militia be instructed
to inquire into the expediency of arming the militia with
rifles, except those residing in cities, towns, and
villages, and report thereon by bill or otherwise.
In offering this resolution, Mr. WRIGHT said he had
Submitted it in confidence of the attention of the House to
the subject, it being one of the first importance, the
protection of the liberties of the people, and from his own
experience in the use of fire arms, having taken a hand in
two wars, he hoped for the attention of the House to his
remarks. The militia in the country, said Mr. W., in their
dispersed situation, can never be taught the use of the
musket, and manmuvres necessary to fit them to contend with
a regular foreign army. The labor they undergo in their
periodical meetings, their marchings and counter-marches ;
their lugging their rusty muskets five or six miles, or,
per-adventure, the using sticks for firelocks, is truly
painful to a spectator skilled in arms, I know vastly
distressing to the country militia. They, sir, have such
disgust to this business, and such antipathy to the duties
of militiamen, have so little confidence in their fitness to
contend with a regular army, that they consider themselves
as sacrifices to the liberties of their country, when thus
compelled to fight. But, sir, arm the country militia with
rifles, and possess each of them with a rifle, compel them
to meet as often as may be thought necessary, and distribute
the fines and forfeitures into premiums for sharp shooting-
taking care to have the fourth day of Jul, perpetual; one of
those days and, sir, you will relieve the militia from an
intolerable burden, give them a perfect confidence in their
strength and power, and make them, as I have always thought
they were, the real bulwark of the liberties of their
country. They fight for themselves, and not like mercenaries
for pay ; they in a little time, a hundred or two hundred
yards, would be sure of their object ; and riflemen need not
be told of the vast certainty to which the use of the rifle
may be brought. The havoc made at New Orleans, near the
close of' the last war, leaves no doubt on this subject. I
have been told of a case, of two rifle-men there, who shot
at the same officer, and each claimed him- one said that lie
shot to hit him under the left eye; the other that he shot
at his head ; he was found to have been shot just under the
left eye, and also in the head; so that he would have been
killed by either. The immense carnage at New Orleans seals
the truth of all I have said. I have been told, further,
that, after the battle, a bet of a supper was made between
the officers of two rifle corps from Georgia and Tennessee,
of six shots aside, an hundred yards; that they shot at a
paper on the mouth of a musket, that the Tennessceans shot
their six balls into the musket, on which the Georgians gave
up the bet. When the British took possession of Kent Island
there were said to be three rifles in the hands of the
militia of the Island, and though concealed to avoid their
getting them, kept them in a constant state of caution, for
fear of being taken off, and which they were anxious to buy.
Besides, the economy in the supply of rifles is of great
consequence ; the rifle barrels can be kept good for a long
time ; can be rebored, and by constant use of oil in their
patches, are not liable to rust - when muskets, with the
greatest care, are liable to rust, and may be bent, and
thereby destroyed. Sir, I have no doubt if our militia shall
be thus armed and thus prepared, and their feats of sharp
shooting published to the world, that all the Powers of
Europe would not be able to press their officers to land on
our Coasts; but, sir, if they shall, notwith- standing, have
the hardihood, I have no doubt they will pay for their
temerity. I ask that the resolution may lie on the table,
that the subject thus broke, may he acted on at an early
day, understandingly, and the liberties of this country be
thus preserved till the last trump.
Without further debate the motion of Mr. WRIGHT, was ordered
to lie on the table.
[end text]
Of course if you're not smart enough to find your own cites,
you can just give up now and, as usual, I'll win again.
The Lone Weasel
news:2o6vd.21660$Ae.15810@fed1read05:
> BTW: You still have not answered my question. Again I ask.
> Point out one, just one, of the original debates on the
> second amendment where it was argued whether the individual
> RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
> otherwise. There is no such argument.
Just so you get this perfectly clear, Markie: why would
anybody discuss personal RKBA in the Federal Convention, or
the US Constitution ratification debates, or in the First
Congress debates on the Bill of Rights, when we all know
there was no personal RKBA under the militia amendment but
only a collective RKBA? You're asking me to prove a
negative?
I assumed you'd catch on one of these days but I think you
really don't understand the absurdity of your question, or
realize that the only answer to it is to tediously explain
why it has no answer.
Is that the time-wasting response you wanted?
Search Eliot's Debates for "militia" - you'll get plenty of
evidence direct from the Founders that the Second Amendment
was conceived as a militia amendment, collective right of the
people to keep up a militia, Congress proscribed from
disarming the people's militia, not a universal militia
because not all citizens or persons were capable of militia
service.
Try just once in your life to think for yourself, okay Mark?
Leif
equipment to the militia of the several states even before the War of
1812. Here are two sections of an act passed in 1808 during the
Jefferson administration:
"An Act making provision for arming and equipping the whole body of
the Militia of the United States
"Be it enacted, That the annual sum of two hundred thousand dollars
be, and the same hereby is, appropriated for the purpose of providing
arms and military equipments for the whole body of the militia of the
United States, either by purchase or manufacture, by and on account of
the United States.
"Sec 3. And be it further enacted, That all arms procured in virtue
of this act shall be transmitted to the several States composing the
Union, and Territories thereof, to each State and Territory
respectively, in proportion to the number of the effective militia in
each State and Territory, and by each State and Territory to be
distributed to the militia in such State and Territory, under such
rules and regulations as shall be by law prescribed by the Legislature
of each State and Territory.
"Approved, April 23, 1808"
(10th Congress, 1st Session, Annals of Congress, Appendix, p. 2860)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=018/llac018.db&recNum=710
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BDD5B047FBA...@130.133.1.4...
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:2o6vd.21660$Ae.15810@fed1read05:
> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:Xns95BD83EF26CC7...@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:EG%ud.21536$Ae.10573@fed1read05:
> >> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> >> > news:Xns95BD6FD51F4F4...@130.133.1.4...
> >> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:Ej_ud.21529$Ae.3941@fed1read05:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, you didn't answer my question.
> >>
> >> I answered it several times Markwad.
> >>
> >> Now it's time to dispense with the typical gunlobby
> >> evasion of facts and tell everybody why your gunlobby
> >> heroes concocted a racist attack against liberals and
> >> centrists who support reasonable gun control.
> >
> > You can not prove this. Nobody "concocted a racist attack
> > against liberals and centrists who support reasonable gun
> > control".
>
> The gunlobby did it.
This is not proof. You must prove that the so called gunlobby "concocted a
racist attack against liberals and centrists who support reasonable gun
control".
>
> > But we all know what your definition of
> > "reasonable gun control" is.
>
> There you go again. You say reasonable gun control is no gun
> control. I say reasonable gun control is some gun control.
>
> Your position is not reasonable. Mine is.
A states only right is not reasonable nor is it correct.
>
> >> > Again I ask. Point out
> >> > one, just one, of the original debates on the second
> >> > amendment where it was argued whether the individual
> >> > RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal
> >> > or otherwise. There is no such argument.
> >>
> >> How many times do I have to post it? As many times as you
> >> can delete it, eh little gunlobby stooge?
> >
> > You have not posted one of the original debates on the
> > second amendment where it was argued whether the individual
> > RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
> > otherwise. There is no such argument.
>
> I've podted them, Krulick's posted them, Leif's posted them,
> and you delete them.
>
> See Eliot's Debates. Search for "militia". Tons of of it. Do
> your own homework, deleter.
The burden of proof is on you. You have not posted anything.
>
> >> Now explain how your racist misuse of the term Saturday
> >> Night Special deserves anything besides condemnation.
> >>
> >> As a racist supporter yourself, you must have smiled at
> >> the similarity of "Saturday Night Special" to "Saturday
> >> Night Social", right Markwad? And you knew by assigning
> >> fake racist origins to "Saturday Night Special" you'd sell
> >> lots more of those cheap handguns to poor whites.
> >
> > You can continue to cry racism all you want. It doesn't
> > make it so. The race card is last ditch effort of losing
> > argument.
>
> Not this time. You boys used racism to promote gun sales.
>
> Bad idea.
How so?
>
> >> BTW, you don't have any reliable sales statistics that
> >> show either blacks or whites buy Saturday Night Specials
> >> with greater frequency, do you? It's probably lower
> >> income people rather than any particular racial group that
> >> buys less expensive guns more often, right? And they'll
> >> be more likely to buy USED guns, which is exactly what the
> >> gun industry fears most.
> >
> > I don't remember claiming blacks or whites bought Saturday
> > Night Specials with greater frequency. Where did you get
> > that? I did point out that the origins of gun control are
> > racist.
>
> The false description of gun control laws that regulate
> Saturday Night Specials as racist, and the name Saturday Night
> Special as having racist origins, is racist; it uses racism as
> a marketing ploy. For that you must confess in public and stop
> using racist marketing campaigns.
>
> Starting tomorrow.
The burden of proof of this is on you. Please show your evidence of what you
claim.
I see several debates on arming the militias and the composition of
militias. I see nothing in any of this that expressly discusses whether the
individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
otherwise. There is no such argument.
Again I ask. Point out one, just one, of the original debates on the second
amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
I see several debates on arming the militias and the composition of
militias. I see nothing in any of this that expressly discusses whether the
individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or
otherwise. There is no such argument.
Again I ask. Point out one, just one, of the original debates on the second
amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
Mark2101
"Leif" <leif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102915477....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Again I ask. Point out one, just one, of the original debates on the second
amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:vlavd.21706$Ae.9049@fed1read05:
> I see several debates on arming the militias and the
> composition of militias. I see nothing in any of this that
> expressly discusses whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP
> AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise.
> There is no such argument.
Right, there's nothing about an individual rkba. There's a
lot about a collective rkba. If you ignore the facts in
order not to lose, you lose by default...
I win again...
[begin speech]
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, unless there be some
restrictions on the power of calling forth the militia, to
execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and
repel invasions, we may very easily see that it will produce
dreadful oppressions. It is extremely unsafe, without some
alterations. It would be to use the militia to a very bad
purpose, if any disturbance happened in New Hampshire, to
call them from Georgia. This would harass the people so much
that they would agree to abolish the use of the militia, and
establish a standing army. I conceive the general government
ought to have power over the militia, but it ought to have
some bounds. If gentlemen say that the militia of a
neighboring state is not sufficient, the government ought to
have power to call forth those of other states, the most
convenient and contiguous. But in this case, the consent of
the state legislatures ought to be had. On real emergencies,
this consent will never be denied, each state being concerned
in the safety of the rest. This power may be restricted
without any danger. I wish such an amendment as this--that
the militia of any state should not be marched beyond the
limits of the adjoining state; and if it be necessary to draw
them from one end of the continent to
Page 379
the other, I wish such a check, as the consent of the state
legislature, to be provided. Gentlemen may say that this
would impede the government, and that the state legislatures
would counteract it by refusing their consent. This argument
may be applied to all objections whatsoever. How is this
compared to the British constitution? Though the king may
declare war, the Parliament has the means of carrying it on.
It is not so here. Congress can do both. Were it not for that
check in the British government, the monarch would be a
despot. When a war is necessary for the benefit of the
nation, the means of carrying it on are never denied. If any
unjust requisition be made on Parliament, it will be, as it
ought to be, refused. The same principle ought to be observed
in our government. In times of real danger, the states will
have the same enthusiasm in aiding the general government,
and granting its demands, which is seen in England, when the
king is engaged in a war apparently for the interest of the
nation. This power is necessary; but we ought to guard
against danger. If ever they attempt to harass and abuse the
militia, they may abolish them, and raise a standing army in
their stead. There are various ways of destroying the
militia. A standing army may be perpetually established in
their stead. I abominate and detest the idea of a government,
where there is a standing army. The militia may be here
destroyed by that method which has been practised in other
parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them
useless--by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress
may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the
militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress
has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. Here is a line of
division drawn between them--the state and general
governments. The power over the militia is divided between
them. The national government has an exclusive right to
provide for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia,
and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States. The state governments have the
power of appointing the officers, and of training the
militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress,
if they should think proper to prescribe any. Should the
national government wish to render the militia useless, they
may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a
pretence of establishing a standing army.
Page 380
No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I
have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor.
But when once a standing army is established in any country,
the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and
disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry,
unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving
freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to
warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of
most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and
destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An
instance within the memory of some of this house will show us
how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the
resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain,
the British Parliament was advised by an artful man,* who was
governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was
the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that
they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them
sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the
militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this
effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we
not provide against the danger of having our militia, our
real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government
ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need
not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect
to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of
no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I
beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to
it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon
I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general
government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia,
there should be an express declaration that the state
governments might arm and discipline them. With this single
exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the
government ought to have the power.
[Note *: * Sir William Keith.]
They may effect the destruction of the militia, by rendering
the service odious to the people themselves, by harassing
them from one end of the continent to the other, and by
keeping them under martial law.
The English Parliament never pass a mutiny bill but for
Page 381
one year. This is necessary; for otherwise the soldiers would
be on the same footing with the officers, and the army would
be dissolved. One mutiny bill has been here in force since
the revolution. I humbly conceive there is extreme danger of
establishing cruel martial regulations. If, at any time, our
rulers should have unjust and iniquitous designs against our
liberties, and should wish to establish a standing army, the
first attempt would be to render the service and use of
militia odious to the people themselves--Subjecting them to
unnecessary severity of discipline in time of peace,
confining them under martial law, and disgusting them so much
as to make them cry out, "Give us a standing army!" I would
wish to have some check to exclude this danger; as, that the
militia should never be subject to martial law but in time of
war. I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to
oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing
evil. By these amendments I would give necessary powers, but
no unnecessary power. If the clause stands as it is now, it
will take from the state legislatures what divine Providence
has given to every individual--the means of self-defence.
Unless it be moderated in some degree, it will ruin us, and
introduce a standing army.
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption
of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]
Saturday, June 14, 1788.
[end speech]
Leif
the militia would be provided arms and discipline, not concern with
personal gun rights. From your Mason quote:
"But we need not give them [the general government] power to abolish
our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper
dicipline, they will be of no use...I wish that, in case the general
government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there
should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm
and discipline them."
Mason got his wish for "an express declaration": the Second Amendment.
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
What have you won? Nothing. The individual right to keep and bears arms has
been refered to and affirmed time and time again in the debates and in other
rulings and writings of the time. Here is just one.
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
(1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer,
legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James
Maidson in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and
this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the
case in the British government."
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of
self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the
study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep
and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,
liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In
England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious
pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the
landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though
calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights
seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms
is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and
degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun
or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior
tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man
in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a
penalty."
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not
intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but
he speaks of a broad right - Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly
attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker
in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually
every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth
Century)
But I must ask again. Point out one, just one, of the original debates on
the second amendment where it was argued whether the individual RIGHT TO
KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. State, federal or otherwise. There is no
such argument.
Mark
Mark2101
And eventually, it was clarified not be to infringed by the States, along
with the rest of the U.S. Constitution, with the fourteenth amendment. Thus
making it an individual right under the U.S. Constitution.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:Ctdvd.21789$Ae.18276@fed1read05:
You pretend every mention of "right to keep and bear arms" or
"bear arms" automatically means an individual right apart from
active militia duty.
Where do you people get this horseshit?
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed, and this without any qualification as to their
> condition or degree, as is the case in the British
> government."
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
That's Tucker, not Blackstone; you don't get any points
associating Tucker's statements with Blackstone's because
Tucker just edited Blackstone's Commentaries, he didn't write
them himself.
Got that, Markwad?
Second, Tucker simply states a truism that the people have a
right to bear arms through keeping up a militia, not by having
shotguns and squirrel rifles at home even though those guns
could be used for self-defense; they were not arms, which in
the 18th C. meant uniform military weapons. Also, the
reference to "condition or degree" is fromthe English Bill of
Rights which reserves the rkba to the non-catholic nobility and
landed gentry, not to ordinary citizens.
Uniform, so when the soldiers went out to shoot the enemy, they
all had the same guns and same ammo, so it was interchangeable,
so if one soldier ran out of ammunition he could more easily
get more balls and powder.
Tucker was apparently a RevWar veteran, he undoubtedly was
aware of the dangers of a poorly trained militia, where does he
specififically and explicitly say that he's talking about
personal rkba and not the militia rkba?
> In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates
> further: "This may be considered as the true palladium of
> liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of
> nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers
Tucker's referring to a collective right to self-defense, a
right to defend your country which is "the first law of
nature." Blackstone is very clear that homicide in self-
defense is merely excusable, not justifiable homicide, meaning
it's governed by statute law, not the fundamental or
constitutional law.
Blackstone makes it very clear that personal self-defense is
not justifiable homicide, but merely excusable under the law:
"II. EXCUSABLE homicide is of two forts; either per
infortunium, by mifadventure; or fe defendendo, upon a
principle of felf-prefervation. We will firft fee wherein thefe
two fpecies of homicide are diftinct, and then wherein they
agree.
...
"IN fome cafes this fpecies of homicide (upon chance-medley in
felf-defence) differs but little from manflaughter, which alfo
happens frequently upon chance-medley in the proper legal fenfe
of the word n. But the true criterion between them feems to be
this: when both parties are actually combating at the time when
the mortal ftroke is given, the flayer is then guilty of
manflaughter; but if the flayer hath not begun to fight, or
(having begun) endeavours to decline any farther ftruggle, and
afterwards, being clofely preffed by his antagonift, kills him
to avoid his own deftruction, this is homicide excufable by
felf-defence o. For which reafon the law requires, that the
perfon, who kills another
in his own defence, fhould have retreated as far as he
conveniently or fafely can, to avoid the violence of the
affault, before he turns upon his affailant; and that, no
fictitioufly, or in order to watch his opportunity, but from a
real tendernefs of fhedding his brother's blood. And though it
may he cowardice, in time of war between two independent
nations, to flee from an enemy; yet between two fellow fubjects
the law countenances no fuch point of honour: becaufe the king
and his courts are the vindices injuriarum, and will give too
the party wronged all the fatisfaction he deferves p. In this
the civil law alfo agrees with ours, or perhaps goes rather
farther; “qui cum aliter tueri fe non poffunt, “damni culpam
dederint, innoxii funt q. The party affaulted muft therefore
flee as far as he conveniently can, either by reafon of fome
wall, ditch, or other impediment; or as far as the fiercenefs
of the affault will permit him r: for it may be fo fierce as
not to allow him to yield a ftep, without manifeft danger of
his life, or enormous bodily harm; and then in his defence he
may kill his affailant inftantly. And this is the doctrine of
univerfal juftice s, as well as of the municipal law.
"AND, as the manner of the defence, fo is alfo the time to be
confidered: for if the perfon affaulted does not fall upon the
aggreffor till the affray is over, or when he is running away,
this is revenge and not defence."
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the Fourth - Chapter the Fourteenth : Of Homicide, 183-
185
> to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
See Madison in Federalist 46:
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several
kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public
resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms."
That is, they hired mercenaries, eg British use of Hessians.
"And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not
be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to
possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen
by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct
the national force, and of officers appointed out of the
militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to
the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance,
that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily
overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
> Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
> whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already
> annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England,
> the people have been disarmed, generally, under the
> specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing
> lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any
> measure, under that mask, though calculated for very
> different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems
> at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of
> bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words
> suitable to their condition and degree, have been
> interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun
> or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer,
> or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to
> kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a
> gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."
And that's Great Britain.
> Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the
> militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to
> keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a
> broad right - Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
First, Tucker is just an editor of Blackstone's Commentaries;
you should cite Blackstone rather than Tucker, as I have.
Second, nothing you cited from Tucker says anything about a
rkba for personal defense, or hunting; it's still in the frame
of reference Madison uses in Federalist 46, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms in defense of the state. That's
the fundamental law, the constitutional law and the highest
natural right because otherwise your life isn't worth beans
anyway; "a well-regulated militia being the best security of a
free state".
Your cite of Tucker, which I'll assume is accurate since it
destroys your argument, merely asserts what Judge Green said
about the English Bill of Rights - and we can now rest assured
Judge Green is right on in his assessment since it's identical
to Tucker cite - that just the Protestant nobility and landed
gentry had a right to bear arms:
[begin excerpt]
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."
In the same view the section under consideration of our own
bill of rights was adopted.
The evil that was produced by disarming the people in the
time of James II was that the king, by means of a standing
army quartered among the people was able to overawe them,
and compel them to submit to the most arbitrary, cruel, and
illegal measures. Whereas, if the people had retained their
arms, they would have been able, by a just and proper
resistance to those oppressive measures, either to have
caused the king to respect their rights, or surrender (as he
was eventually compelled to do) the government into other
hands. No private defence, was contemplated, or would have
availed anything. If the subjects had been armed, they
could have resisted the payment of excessive lines, or the
infliction of illegal and cruel punishments. When,
therefore, Parliament says that "subjects which are
Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to
their condition, as allowed by law," it does not mean for
private defence, but, being armed, they may as a body rise
up to defend their just rights, and compel their rulers to
respect the laws. This declaration of right is made in
reference to the fact before complained of, that the people
had been disarmed, and soldiers had been quartered among
them contrary to law. The complaint was against the
government. The grievances to which they were thus forced
to submit were for the most part of a public character, and
could have been redressed only by the people rising up for
their common defence, to vindicate their rights.
The section under consideration, in our bill of rights, was
adopted in reference to these historical facts, and in this
point of view its language is most appropriate and
expressive. Its words are, "the free white men of this
state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common
defence." It, to be sure, asserts the right much more
broadly than the statute of William & Mary. For the right
there asserted is subject to the disabilities contained in
the act of Charles II. There, lords and esquires, and their
sons, and persons whose yearly income from land amounted to
100 pounds, were of suitable condition to keep arms. But,
with us, every free white man is of suitable condition, and,
therefore, every free white man may keep and bear arms. But
to keep and bear arms for what? If the history of the
subject had left in doubt the object for which the right is
secured, the words that are employed must completely remove
that doubt. It is declared that they may keep and bear arms
for their common defence. The word "common," here used,
means, according to Webster: 1. Belonging equally to more
than one, or to many indefinitely. 2. Belonging to the
public. 3. General. 4. Universal. 5. Public. The object,
then, for which the right of keeping, and bearing arms is
secured is the [common defence] of the, public. The free
white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to
keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the
supremacy of the laws and the constitution. The words "bear
arms," too, have reference to their military use, and were
not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part
of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and
bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be
exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence,
so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as
are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that
constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens
have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the
best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their
rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a
purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed
in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands
of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be
useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously
in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and
bear them is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
So Tucker says exactly what Judge Green says in Aymette, which
I've posted for years.
Glad you're finally catching on, Markwad...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
The Lone Weasel
news:Wwdvd.21790$Ae.19439@fed1read05:
>
> "Leif" <leif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1102926191.551229.134460
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> Leif speaking: Yes, the question on Mason's mind was
>> whether and how the militia would be provided arms and
>> discipline, not concern with personal gun rights. From
>> your Mason quote:
>>
>> "But we need not give them [the general government] power
>> to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and
>> prescribe proper dicipline, they will be of no use...I
>> wish that, in case the general government should neglect
>> to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an
>> express declaration that the state governments might arm
>> and discipline them."
>>
>> Mason got his wish for "an express declaration": the
>> Second Amendment.
>>
>
> And eventually, it was clarified not be to infringed by the
> States, along with the rest of the U.S. Constitution, with
> the fourteenth amendment. Thus making it an individual
> right under the U.S. Constitution.
I thought Mason and Madison decided that the states could
also arm the militia concurrently with Congress.
I don't know where you get the 14th Amendment, since many
states had already included personal rkba in theor
constitutions in addition to their state militia's rkba
granted by the Second Amendment and by the states themselves,
just in case the feds decided not to recognize the Second
Amendment.
This is really old news that you seem to have missed, Markie.
_______________
The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it
is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the
amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig. 7. The
clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said
to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms,
in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig.
14.
The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the
perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea,
that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and
enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in
our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to
the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal
right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms,
in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute.
He does not derive it from the state government, but
directly from the sovereign convention of the people that
framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of
the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed
to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
and independent of the law-making power.
Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> I've posted for years.
>
> Glad you're finally catching on, Markwad...
>
You are reaching to say the least. It is amazing how you can read something
so plain and not understand. On the other hand, I think you don't want to
understand. How many times do the word "the people" have to be used before
you get it? But, like all anti's you seem to think the words "the people"
used in the other amendments somehow changed when it came to the second
amendment. Tell me, how does that happen?
Another example:
Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A
View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work
was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other
institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's
right to keep and bear arms:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule
of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.
Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by
a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either
should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on
both."
This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to
individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national
government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage
also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause
was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed as a United States Attorney for
Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than
eight years. He was also George Washington's candidate for the nation's
first attorney general, but Rawle declined the appointment.)
BTW: You still have not answered my question. Again I ask. Point out one,
just one, of the original debates on the second amendment where it was
argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed.
State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
"We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plainmeaning of its text,
namely that it protects individual Americans
in their right to keep and bear arms
whether or not they are a member of a select militia
or performing active military service or training.
Second Amendment protects individual rights
We reject the collective rights
and sophisticated collective rights models
for interpreting the Second Amendment."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
October 16, 2001
Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and PARKER,
Circuit Judges.
Harold Robbins
Mark2101 wrote:
> That was the whole point of it. That was and has been clarified over and
> over again in the debates by the authors at the time and has also been
> clarified by historians and legal scholars ever since.
>
You are right. It was debated and adding the phrase "for the common
defense" was removed. The wordsmithing ended up with a better document
because it reinforced the basic rights of the citizens to self defense
as well as "the common defense". If a militia only, there would be no
need for the second amendment. The government isn't going to interfere
with the government's right to arms. But the second amendment was
demanded by the states to make sure the right to own and BEAR arms was
defended or they would not sign.
Harold
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes, so what?
>
> I don't know where you get the 14th Amendment, since many
> states had already included personal rkba in theor
> constitutions in addition to their state militia's rkba
> granted by the Second Amendment and by the states themselves,
> just in case the feds decided not to recognize the Second
> Amendment.
>
> This is really old news that you seem to have missed, Markie.
>
I thought we went over this. But here it is again real short. After the
civil war, the rebel states were still trying to continue slavery with "the
black codes". These included, among other violations, the disarming of
blacks. The fourteenth amendment was to force the states to adhere to the
federal constitution. All of it. Including the RKBA.
Amazing how this destroys everything you claim and yet you read it exactly
backwards. What part of "the people" do you not understand?
BTW: You still have not answered my question. Again I ask. Point out one,
just one, of the original debates on the second amendment where it was
argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed.
State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:91pvd.22951$Ae.21756@fed1read05:
> Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William
> Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United
> States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a
> constitutional law textbook at West Point and other
> institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the
> Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:
[begin omitted text]
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated
Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a
proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual
war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more
valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of
a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form
the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion,
to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace
of government. That they should be well regulated, is
judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to
itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country.
The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations
as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions
of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this
all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
[end omitted text]
Did you have ny question that Rawle is discussing a colletive
right of the well-regulated militia? He even asserts correctly
that the second part of the amendment proceeds logically from
the first part, ie "BECAUSE a well regulated militia is
necessary to the security of a free state, THUS the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What could be clearer? Good cite, Markie.
> "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
> could by any rule of construction be conceived to give
> congress a power to disarm the people.
Obviously true.
Is that all, Markup? Good. Then I think we should give old
Bill Rawle this wonderfully satisfying...
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
___________________
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused
to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is
an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by
a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just
reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of
them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety
of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to
imprisonments. 8
_____
8. 3 Coke's Inst. 160. Hawkins, b. 1. c. 60.
A View of the Constitution, William Rawle (1829)
The Lone Weasel
news:dapvd.22953$Ae.13750@fed1read05:
We can go over it word by word if you want to.
I didn't mean to distract you from Leif. When he's done with
you we can look at Cockrum.
______________
(1) By natural law the following things belong to all men,
namely: air, running water, the sea, and for this reason the
shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is prohibited from
approaching the seashore if he avoids damaging houses,
monuments, and other structures, because they are not, like
the sea, subject to the Law of Nations...
(12) Therefore, wild beasts, birds, and fishes, that is to
say all creatures that exist on the earth, in the sea, or in
the air, as soon as they are taken by anyone immediately
become his property by the Law of Nations, since whatever
formerly belonged to no one is conceded by natural reason to
the first person obtaining possession of the same.1 Nor does
it make any difference whether anyone takes wild beasts and
birds on his own ground or on that of another, although it
is evident that if anyone enters upon the land of another
for the purpose of hunting animals or birds, he may be
prohibited from entering by the owner, if he is aware of it.
Any of these things which you may have taken is understood
to be your property as long as it is retained in your
custody; but after it has escaped from your custody and
recovered its natural liberty, it ceases to be yours, and
belongs to the first person who secures it. It is understood
to have recovered its natural liberty when it has escaped
out of your sight, or, if still in your sight, its pursuit
is difficult.
G. SP Scott, The Civil Law THE ENACTMENTS OF JUSTINIAN. THE
INSTITUTES. BOOK II. TITLE I. CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF
THINGS.
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
You conveniently deleted most of it. Please follow along.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule
of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.
Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by
a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either
should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on
both."
This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to
individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national
government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage
also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause
was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed as a United States Attorney for
Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than
eight years. He was also George Washington's candidate for the nation's
first attorney general, but Rawle declined the appointment.)
>
> > "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
> > could by any rule of construction be conceived to give
> > congress a power to disarm the people.
>
> Obviously true.
>
> Is that all, Markup? Good. Then I think we should give old
> Bill Rawle this wonderfully satisfying...
And who are 'the people' Rawle is refering too.
>
> POINT PROVEN!
Not only for the individual right but as militia right as well.
Mark
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
OH! PLEASE DO!
This outta be great!
>
> I didn't mean to distract you from Leif.
> When he's done with
> you we can look at Cockrum.
>
I guess this is supposed to be your idea of an intellectual threat. You are
hysterical. Please, keep your feet on the ground when responding to me.
Good grief!
Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:xTuvd.24093$Ae.14277@fed1read05:
You deleted the orevious two paragraphs that showed you lied
about what Rawle actually said; then you blamed me for
deleting some of that lie.
This is how gunlobby whores like Markie make suckers of gun
owners. You just blatantly lie and gun owners are too damn
lazy to check your lies, eh Markie?
> "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
> could by any rule of construction be conceived to give
> congress a power to disarm the people.
And Rawle says the right of the people to keep and bear arms
is a collective right vested in the well-regulated militia.
You seem to ignore that fact, Markie.
> Such a flagitious
infamous
> attempt could only be made under some general pretence by
> a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of
> inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment
> may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
Not on the states, just Congress:
[begin excerpt]
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right
there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful
purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument
for its existence. The second amendment declares that it
shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no
more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This
is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to
restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the
people to look for their protection against any violation by
their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what
is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the
'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or
what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,'
'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the
United States.
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
[end excerpt]
He also anticipates Presser:
"This right ought not, however, in any government, to be
abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
"An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose,
is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms
abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances
giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an
unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require
him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be
liable to imprisonments. 8"
[begin excerpt]
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military
company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms,
without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of
the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of
national citizenship. Military organization and military
drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under
the control of the government of every country. They cannot
be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our
political system they are subject to the regulation and
control of the state and federal governments, acting in due
regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The
constitution and laws of the United States will be searched
in vain for any support to the view that these rights are
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
independent of some specific legislation on the subject.
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
[end excerpt]
> This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people"
> refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states
> nor the national government has legitimate authority to
> disarm its citizens.
You say Rawle refers to THE PEOPLE but he really means
individuals, not what he said, THE PEOPLE?
Sober up, son. You're just spouting crazy shit.
>> > "The prohibition is general. No clause in the
>> > constitution could by any rule of construction be
>> > conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.
>>
>> Obviously true.
>>
>> Is that all, Markup? Good. Then I think we should give
>> old Bill Rawle this wonderfully satisfying...
>
> And who are 'the people' Rawle is refering too.
The people, just like he said the "well-regulated militia
being the best security of a free state" was a direct
corollary, the logical precursor, to "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms".
Like I've been telling you gunlobby clowns for years, now
your own sources back me up...
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
"In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated
Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a
proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual
war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more
valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement
of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia
form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel
invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good
order and peace of government. That they should be well
regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is
disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to
its own country. The duty of the state government is, to
adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers
with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful
occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong
and visible interest.
"The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
- William Rawle
The Lone Weasel
news:k0vvd.24114$Ae.8543@fed1read05:
>> We can go over it word by word if you want to.
>
> OH! PLEASE DO!
> This outta be great!
Okay Markie. Here's the first sentence:
The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it
is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the
amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7.
Identify "the clause in the constitution of the United States"
to which Justice Roberts refers in this sentence.
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BF9E0BFC06l...@130.133.1.4...
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:xTuvd.24093$Ae.14277@fed1read05:
> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:Xns95BEB4DFB42Dl...@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:91pvd.22951$Ae.21756@fed1read05:
>
> >
>
> You deleted the orevious two paragraphs that showed you lied
> about what Rawle actually said; then you blamed me for
> deleting some of that lie.
Only because you had and I had previously posted them. Brevity you know.
>
> This is how gunlobby whores like Markie make suckers of gun
> owners. You just blatantly lie and gun owners are too damn
> lazy to check your lies, eh Markie?
You still ignore what he clearly statated.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule
of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.
Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by
a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either
should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on
both."
Meaning either the federal government or the state. You can try, but you
will be twisting his whole meanning.
>
> > "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
> > could by any rule of construction be conceived to give
> > congress a power to disarm the people.
>
> And Rawle says the right of the people to keep and bear arms
> is a collective right vested in the well-regulated militia.
"the people" refers to individuals, just as it does all the other
amendments. Unless you want to try and argue that the use of "the people"
in the other amendments means collective rights. But you don't, do you. So
explain to me how "the people" means something different in the second
amendment, or the fourteenth for that matter?. Since Rawle writes neither
the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm
its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is
general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of
the right.
>
Sounds fair enough. But what has this to do with the individual RKBA.
>
> [begin excerpt]
>
> The right voluntarily to associate together as a military
> company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms,
> without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of
> the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of
> national citizenship. Military organization and military
> drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under
> the control of the government of every country. They cannot
> be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our
> political system they are subject to the regulation and
> control of the state and federal governments, acting in due
> regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The
> constitution and laws of the United States will be searched
> in vain for any support to the view that these rights are
> privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
> independent of some specific legislation on the subject.
>
>
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
A well regulated militia. Again, what does this have to do with the
individual RKBA.
>
> [end excerpt]
>
> > This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people"
> > refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states
> > nor the national government has legitimate authority to
> > disarm its citizens.
>
> You say Rawle refers to THE PEOPLE but he really means
> individuals, not what he said, THE PEOPLE?
There you go. I think you've got it.
>
> Sober up, son. You're just spouting crazy shit.
But you just agreed with me. You said "Rawle refers to THE PEOPLE but he
really means individuals".
>
> >> > "The prohibition is general. No clause in the
> >> > constitution could by any rule of construction be
> >> > conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.
> >>
> >> Obviously true.
> >>
> >> Is that all, Markup? Good. Then I think we should give
> >> old Bill Rawle this wonderfully satisfying...
> >
> > And who are 'the people' Rawle is refering too.
>
> The people, just like he said the "well-regulated militia
> being the best security of a free state" was a direct
> corollary, the logical precursor, to "the right of the people
> to keep and bear arms".
>
> Like I've been telling you gunlobby clowns for years, now
> your own sources back me up...
>
> POINT PROVEN!
You are now contradicting yourself. You clearly agreed with me that "Rawle
refers to THE PEOPLE but he really means individuals". In trying cover your
tracks you have become lost in your own distortions.
>
> Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
>
> "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated
> Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a
> proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual
> war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more
> valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement
> of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia
> form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel
> invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good
> order and peace of government. That they should be well
> regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is
> disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to
> its own country. The duty of the state government is, to
> adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers
> with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful
> occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong
> and visible interest.
>
> "The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right
> of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Yes, he is stating a well regulated militia is necessary. But he previously
clearly stated that this was not dependent on the militia clause. Also, he
clearly stated, and you agreed, "the people" means individuals. So there he
is confirming the individual right.
Mark
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
Oh darn. I thought you were going to explain it to me. I should have known
you would not be able to.
The Lone Weasel
news:ZWxvd.24743$Ae.22831@fed1read05:
>> The clause in the constitution of the United States, that
>> it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the
>> amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig.
>> 7.
>>
>> Identify "the clause in the constitution of the United
>> States" to which Justice Roberts refers in this sentence.
>
> Oh darn. I thought you were going to explain it to me. I
> should have known you would not be able to.
We're just beginning, son. I just want to see if you can
handle the easy stuff.
Can you agree that "the 2d article of the amendments" is the
Second Amendment? And that, even without the exact same
punctuation as your gunlobby copy of the amendment, it still
means the same thing?
And I assume you have a copy of the case at hand. You're
going to need it, unless you run away now like the gunlobby
coward we all know and expect you to be.
Got your case ready, Markie? A simple yes or no will do,
because the next question requires you to think about
something in the sentence above.
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:ZWxvd.24743$Ae.22831@fed1read05:
>
> >> The clause in the constitution of the United States, that
> >> it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the
> >> amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig.
> >> 7.
> >>
> >> Identify "the clause in the constitution of the United
> >> States" to which Justice Roberts refers in this sentence.
> >
> > Oh darn. I thought you were going to explain it to me. I
> > should have known you would not be able to.
>
> We're just beginning, son. I just want to see if you can
> handle the easy stuff.
>
> Can you agree that "the 2d article of the amendments" is the
> Second Amendment? And that, even without the exact same
> punctuation as your gunlobby copy of the amendment, it still
> means the same thing?
YES!
>
> And I assume you have a copy of the case at hand. You're
> going to need it, unless you run away now like the gunlobby
> coward we all know and expect you to be.
>
> Got your case ready, Markie? A simple yes or no will do,
> because the next question requires you to think about
> something in the sentence above.
>
Why would I run away? I just answered your question YES.
I agree "even without the exact same punctuation as your [mine] gunlobby
copy of the amendment, it still means the same thing?"
Why of course we can agree to that.
You know, I think you are really are getting the idea here.
Mark
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
Proposed Virginia Constitution(1776),
Jefferson Papers 344,(J.Boyd,ed.1950)
Harold Robbins
weeks later we have BOR day and need to spend some more money? Wish I
could, but I doubt I could convince my wife I need another gun right
now. I'll celebrate it by hanging my flag.
Harold
Name Redacted wrote:
> Mark2101 wrote:
>
>>Celebrate Bill of Rights Day Dec. 15, and its Cornerstone, the 2nd
>
> Amendment
>
>>
>>By Alan Gottlieb
>>
>>
>>Remarkable as it might seem, Dec. 15 frequently comes and goes
>
> unnoticed by
>
>>most Americans, yet it is a date commemorating the document that has
>
> made
>
>>this nation the benchmark against which all others are measured.
>>
>>
>>On that day in 1791 the Bill of Rights - the first ten Amendments to
>
> the
>
>>Constitution - was ratified. To put that in perspective, it took this
>
> nation
>
>>several years to adopt a Constitution, and more than a decade to
>
> produce the
>
>>Bill of Rights. Today, we should not expect emerging democracies to
>>accomplish the same thing overnight.
>>
>>
>>The Bill of Rights delineates certain individual rights guaranteed to
>
> all of
>
>>the people. Among those rights are freedom of assembly, religion,
>
> speech and
>
>>press; the right to legal counsel, due process, and privacy.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps the cornerstone to all of these is the right to keep and bear
>
> arms.
>
>>A careful reading of the Amendment
>
>
> Yes! A "careful" reading adds a detail you skip over, something about
> militias. Gun owners are, by owning a gun, volunteering for military
> service...activite the buggers!
>
>
>
>> and the history behind it establishes
>>beyond doubt that the Second Amendment was this nation's original
>
> "homeland
>
>>security" measure. The Amendment does not "grant" anything, but
>
> instead
>
>>affirms the right of arms to the people, and has been even more
>
> specifically
>
>>defined in some state constitutions as "the right of the individual
>
> citizen
>
>>to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
>>
>>
>>The Second Amendment was a guarantee of self-defense on the frontier,
>
> and of
>
>>the common defense against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It
>
> is, as
>
>>some historians have observed, an "insurance policy" against the
>>establishment of a tyrannical government.
>>
>>
>>As the nation expanded and matured, the Second Amendment has hardly
>
> become
>
>>archaic. It is as fundamental today as it was two centuries ago,
>
> although
>
>>along the way, self-appointed "progressives," social engineers, and
>
> even
>
>>some lower courts have tried to obfuscate its meaning by inventing,
>
> through
>
>>some tortured logic, a "collective right" theory that clearly does
>
> not stand
>
>>up under scrutiny. "The people" referred to in the Second Amendment
>
> are the
>
>>same individual citizens alluded to in the First, Fourth, Ninth and
>
> Tenth
>
>>Amendments.
>>
>>
>>Fortunately at this time of great peril, the right protected by the
>
> Second
>
>>Amendment is gaining back "lost ground" that had been eroded by
>
> zealous and
>
>>misguided legislation over the years. Forty-six states have laws that
>>guarantee citizens the right to carry a gun for their personal
>
> safety.
>
>>Thirty-eight of those states have "right-to-carry" laws that mandate
>>concealed carry licenses will be issued to all law-abiding citizens
>
> who want
>
>>them.
>>
>>
>>Several states have passed recognition statutes that honor all
>
> concealed
>
>>carry licenses issued by other states, or have adopted "reciprocity"
>
> laws by
>
>>which states agree to recognize licenses issued by cooperating
>
> states. Not
>
>>perfect, of course, but a good "first step" toward restoration of the
>
> right
>
>>of citizens to be safe not only in their own communities, but when
>
> they
>
>>travel.
>>
>>
>>The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the right of the Legislature to
>
> pass a
>
>>right-to-carry law. The Illinois Legislature overrode a governor's
>
> veto
>
>>recently to affirm the self-defense right of a citizen in his own
>
> home,
>
>>despite passage of local ordinances that would preclude such a right
>
> by
>
>>prohibiting the ownership of handguns.
>>
>>
>>The U.S. House of Representatives voted to override the Washington,
>
> D.C. gun
>
>>ban. With the election of a more pro-gun rights Senate, that
>
> legislation may
>
>>pass in 2005 and be signed into law.
>>
>>
>>In September, history was made when a fundamentally flawed and
>
> statistically
>
>>unsuccessful federal gun control law - the ban on so-called "assault
>> weapons" - was allowed to expire. No law that makes it acceptable to
>
> ban
>
>>certain firearms is good, because it sets a precedent by which, under
>
> the
>
>>wrong circumstances and wrong leadership, it would be acceptable to
>
> ban
>
>>other firearms.
>>
>>
>>According to a recent Gallup survey, the public "has become more
>
> hesitant in
>
>>recent years to say gun laws should be made more strict."
>>
>>
>>Gun owners are a recognized voting bloc and a political force to be
>
> reckoned
>
>>with. Not surprisingly, those devoted to gun rights support all civil
>>rights. Many gun owners, and not just in the Red states, will
>
> celebrate Dec.
>
>>15 by purchasing a new gun. Others who can't afford a new gun will
>
> buy a box
>
>>of ammunition to show their support.
>>
>>
>>How will you celebrate this important anniversary?
>>
>>
>>Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation,
>
> www.saf.org,
>
>>and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear
>
> Arms,
>
>>www.ccrkba.org.
>>**********************
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>"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."
>>--Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian,"
>>in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments
>>To The Federal Constitution,"
>>in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_
>>June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1
>
>
Steve Krulick
...
> Mark
>
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
>
> Thomas Jefferson
> Proposed Virginia Constitution(1776),
> Jefferson Papers 344,(J.Boyd,ed.1950)
Typical disingenuous hoplophile out-of-context
misrepresentation. Or maybe simple ignorance. Get educated:
This is what happens when ignorant non-historians just cut and
paste whatever crap the hoplophile sites spew!
The sentence it is NOT the same as what he ACTUALLY said, in
context:
"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands
or tenements."
AND it is NOT complete. It is therefore a MISQUOTE, rather than
being a quote. Misquoting and partial quoting out of context is
typical of hoplophile pseudoscholarship, and one merely has to
GO to the URL site where these bastardized quotes are compiled
to see a whole string of similar pettifoggery, a whole series of
INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, and OUT-OF-CONTEXT misquotes that
misrepresent what each author was actually saying.
Sloppy research leads to sloppy presentation, and hoplophiles
have been doing this consistently.
Back to the cite: Incomplete, inaccurate, out of context, never
enacted.
Therefore, irrelevant and misleading.
This 1776 "mis"quote is NOT a reference to the 2nd Amen, written
13 years later! Therefore, it obviously has nothing to do with
what Tom had to say about the 2nd Amen and what it meant, or
what Madison meant by "bear arms."
This PROPOSAL -- "No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms
in his own lands or tenements" -- by Jefferson for the 1776
Virginia Constitution WAS REJECTED; it did not make it into the
VA Const, nor was it used later in the US Const. BTW, you left
out the part that restricted use of arms to one's OWN lands;
even then the proposal was still left out. Also, "the use of
arms" is not the same as "bear arms" which is a military
expression that means to serve as a soldier in the militia or
army.
What WAS passed was the VA Declaration of Rights, which became
part of the 1776 VA Const; Article 13 of the Virginia
Declaration of Rights provides:
"That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence
of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should
be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the
military should be under strict subordination to and governed by
the civil power."
There is no mention of an individual right to "keep and bear
arms," as Adams and Madison meant it, or, indeed any
"individual" right at all, certainly not one independent of a
well-regulated Militia. The focus of the article is on the role
of the militia versus a standing army.
As for the later US Const ratification debates, there is no
mention in the Virginia debates of individuals carrying weapons,
or of the need to assure individuals that the federal government
would not confiscate their arms. The debate was solely in the
context of whether the government would affirmatively provide
arms for the militia.
http://www.gunlawsuits.com/illusion.asp:
"Then there's the original Virginia Bill of Rights, the first
adopted, that expressed both the colonists' allegiance to the
idea of a citizen militia and their fear of standing armies:
"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,
should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all
cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and
governed by, the civil power." Reprinted in Sources of Our
Liberties 312 (Perry & Cooper ed. 1959)
There is little doubt that this provision of the Virginia Bill
of Rights was concerned exclusively with the distribution of
military power and the proper role of the military in a free
society. The language makes no suggestion of a right to bear
arms.
[In fact, the word "right" or "rights" isn't mentioned AT ALL!
So THEY considered it A RIGHT, of ITSELF, that a well regulated
militia for State defense merely EXISTED!]
The first state to adopt such language was Pennsylvania,
which did so as part of its constitutional provision addressing
military matters:
[Let me repeat THAT: "which did so as part of its constitutional
provision addressing military matters"]
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of
peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;
And that the military should be kept under strict subordination
to, and governed by, the civil power.
Other state constitutions proceeded to adopt variations of
either the Virginia or Pennsylvania models. The states which
included "right to bear arms" language did so in the context of
provisions dealing with military matters.
[Let me repeat THAT: "did so in the context of provisions
dealing with military matters"]
...Thus, there is no indication from the history of the 2nd
Amendment that the Founders were seeking a broad guarantee of
the individual right to own firearms for any purpose. On the
contrary, the expressed intention of the framers was to
guarantee that state militias remained armed and viable, and the
"right to keep and bear arms" must be understood as implementing
that purpose. The implication of this intention is that the
constitutionality of a statute regulating firearms should turn
on whether the statute affects firearms in such a way as to
adversely affect a state's ability to raise and maintain an
armed "well-regulated militia."
The Lone Weasel
news:7IEvd.26358$Ae.21316@fed1read05:
Good, Markie; we just disabused thousands of gunloons of the
crackpot notion that the punctuation in the Second Amendment
makes it mean something more, when really the clerks who
copied the Bill of Rights weren't particularly careful about
their use of punctuation. It wasn't fully standardized in
the late 18th C. so we have to rely on just the words and the
ordinary syntax, which were not monkeyed around with, to know
what the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights and the US
Constitution actually say and mean.
Good for you.
Now, the "it" in "that it is said to be in violation of", is
what? We know it's a law, but what kind of law, and what
does it say? For example, is it part of the Texas
Constitution or a statute, and what is it concerned with?
Harold Robbins
Mark2101 wrote:
> Let me rephrase my question for clarity. Point out one, just one, of the
> original debates on the second amendment where it was argued whether the
> individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed. There is no such
> argument.
No need, the Second amendment already resolved the argument.
>
> Mark
>
> The Constitution preserves
> "the advantage of being armed
> which Americans possess over the people
> of almost every other nation...
> (where) the governments are afraid
> to trust the people with arms."
>
> James Madison
> The Federalist #46
But let us consider James Madison who did exactly what you said above.
"The advantage of being armed which Americans possess......" Not
the Military, not the Militia, not "The People", but the "Americans
possess".
Harold
Mark2101
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BF9262867Dl...@130.133.1.4...
> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:7IEvd.26358$Ae.21316@fed1read05:
> > "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:Xns95BF5C3B389A5...@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Mark2101" <Marks...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:ZWxvd.24743$Ae.22831@fed1read05:
> >>
No, you just said it meant the something regardless of punctuation. You
can't now claim that one way of punctuating it means something more, or
less. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Steve Krulick
HERE is how it works, Lee's opinion notwithstanding:
According to the parchment copy of the BoR behind bullet-proof
glass in the National Archives, THE official BoR, there are
three commas. Go to:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/charters_downloads.html
It's a hi-res photo of THE Bill of Rights, the one in THE
National Archives, the one in THE bullet-proof, bomb-proof,
inert-gas-filled case. One can make out THREE commas in "Article
the fourth..." which is the 2nd Amen as ratified!
If this ISN'T the authentic BOR, well, then we're spending an
AWFUL lot of money protecting the WRONG Bill of Rights in the
National Archives, aren't we! Is there a MORE correct and MORE
original one, lurking around somewhere, that we don't know
about, and letting it rot?
So Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House, and John
Adams, President of the Senate, just signed off on an INACCURATE
LEGAL DOCUMENT? IF it were incorrect, how long do you think it
would have been before someone (like one of the Senators or Reps
who CERTAINLY knew what the correct version was) pointed it out
to the scribe to correct? A day? A week? A year? A century?
Then go to
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
to read the transcript, since your eyes may be playing
self-fulfilling tricks on you:
"THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AS RATIFIED BY THE
STATES
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10
amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These
amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is
known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
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.
Amendment II
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.
...
Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from
the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress
proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in
the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C."
Visit the Newseum in Arlington VA. They have a copy
of the United States Gazette, Sept 23, 1789, which has the
passed articles being sent to the states for ratification; this
authoritative publication has the future 2nd Amen exactly the
same way as above, with THREE commas. So do the broadsheets
printed in New York City, then the site of the Congress.
The Courts have accepted this as the authoritative version:
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
"... the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- '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.'"
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"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." U.S. Const. amend. II.
Even the arch-individual-rights proponent Neil Schulman,
frequently cited, uses the "canonical" version of the 2nd Amen!:
"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.'
So, the US Government seems to disagree with you about the
commas! But even if we allow for printer error in remote states,
or possible variations making their way through Congress as the
article was modified:
IF the use of MORE commas, including the one between "arms"
and "shall," was bad grammar and without purpose, in and of
itself, why did they EVER appear at all, anywhere? IF they
served NO purpose, why did anyone use them even once? IF it was
inherently ungrammatical, how would any of these educated
gentlemen let it slip by in official documentation even once?
Surely SOMEONE would have had it stricken SOMEWHERE very early
on if that were so!
The functional sentence IS and ALWAYS WAS "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." In its entirety.
At LEAST, Schulman uses the "canonical" version of the 2nd Amen,
the one IN the BOR encased in the National Archives, the one in
the United States Gazette of Sept. 23, 1789, the one forwarded
on to the states for ratification, as shown in the copies
printed in New York; some disingenuous obfuscators claim that
there IS no comma between Arms and shall, or between Militia and
necessary, which CAN affect the grammatical analysis to some
degree.
Because there ARE three commas, four clauses/phrases, it could
just as clearly be written:
"A well regulated militia, ... , shall not be infringed."
Further to this grammatical analysis, from
http://www.potowmack.org/yass.html:
At the same time the congressional drafters switched the order
of the clauses, they inserted two unusual commas that further
emphasize the framers' intention to prevent federal interference
with the militia. Under ordinary usage, the first and third
commas in the Amendment are unnecessary. If these commas had not
been inserted, it would be possible to understand the Well
Regulated Militia Clause as simply explaining the rationale for
the Bear Arms Clause (the Amendment would then read: "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."). But the commas are in fact in the text proposed
by Congress and ratified by the states, and they prevent this
reading. The first unusual comma - between "Militia" and "being"
- forces the reader to search for a verb for which "Militia" is
the subject. That verb does not appear until "shall not be
infringed" near the end of the Amendment.
The second unusual comma - between "Arms" and "shall" - sets off
the verb phrase "shall not be infringed" from the preceding
language; it suggests that the subject for this verb phrase is
not simply "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The
grammatical effect of these two unusual commas is to link "A
well regulated Militia" to "shall not be infringed" to
emphasize, in other words, that the goal of the Amendment is to
protect the militia against federal interference. The
Constitution was drafted with great care, and (unlike much legal
writing from the Founding period) its use of punctuation
generally conforms to modern conventions, suggesting that the
commas in the Second Amendment are not haphazard but rather
deserve scrupulous attention.
Even further, to this,
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm:
"In the instance of the Second Amendment, the unadorned
linguistics are themselves informative. The right to arms is
declared by the verbs, "keep and bear," a phrase selected in
preference to alternatives such as "have," "own," "carry," or
"possess." Scholars have informed us that the chosen terms have
a distinctly military connotation, especially the verb "to
bear," which would not have been used in the eighteenth century
- as it would not be today - to connote purely private use of
arms. You do not bear a shotgun to go duck hunting. But we need
not rely entirely on that language in the announcement of the
right in the main clause. We have, as we have emphasized
throughout this paper, a clear and unequivocal expression of the
linguistic context of the primary right in the introductory
phrase that accompanies it. The mere presence of the militia
phrase sharing a single sentence with the arms clause has, as we
have argued throughout, inescapable significance.
In addition, the way the two parts of the provision are
expressed amplifies the significance of their conjunction. The
critical introductory language does not aver the relationship of
the militia to a free state in a simple declarative clause - a
form that might have established two severable propositions: the
importance of a militia and the right to arms. Rather, in the
first part, the verbal vehicle elected for the verb "to be" is a
participle, yielding a phrase known to grammarians as an
"ablative absolute construction." This construction
characterizes a phrase modifying the substance of the main
clause as an adjective would modify a noun, often expressing the
condition or circumstances of the assertion of the main clause.
It creates an indissoluble link between the two parts of the
sentence and grammatically subjects the right to arms to the
rule of the militia modifier. As a simple matter of grammar, the
participle modifier is essential for the declarative clause to
occur. Had the two statements - regarding the importance of a
militia and the right to arms - not been linked in this manner,
it might have been possible to argue that even if the first
declaration ceases to be true, the second is undiminished. And
it seems to us significant that the drafters chose the structure
they did. The linguistics were certainly understood to the
framing generation (who were more likely to know the niceties of
Latinate grammar than we are). Taken together then - as they
must be - these two components of the provision grant the people
such right to arms as will preserve or empower the militia to
assure the security of the community."
Here, there's even THIS from a PRO-GUN site!:
http://patriot.net/~tlj/xplaindp.htm
--------
The Second Amendment is split by commas into four phrases, the
last of which is a verbal phrase starting with the verb "shall":
"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 first two phrases are related to each other. The fact that
the third phrase is separated from the verbal phrase by a comma
indicates that the verbal phrase has more than the third phrase
as its subject. The abbreviated grammatical construction
actually renders the meaning of the Second Amendment as:
"Neither a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, nor the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall be infringed."
Note also that the term "arms" then and now implies military
weapons.
--------
The 2nd Amen is unique... the ONLY BoR amendment that SPELLS OUT
the reason for its existence!
And that is why one can't ignore it! In LAW, specifically
in Constitutional interpretation, there ARE NO subordinate
clauses! Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison,
stated that there IS NO "surplusage" in the Constitution! This
"debate" is ONLY being promulgated by those who CAN'T or WON'T
accept that the 2nd Amen MUST be read and understood IN ITS
ENTIRETY!
IF they were not writing a narrowly focussed MILITIA AMENDMENT,
they could have simply left OUT the first half!
Yet even so, based on what Madison MEANT by "bear arms," even
the ABSENCE of the first half leaves no doubt that it is
strictly a militia amendment!:
"Main" clause is a grammatical, NOT a legal term; there IS no
subordinate "clauses" in Constitutional interpretation... the
law MUST be interpreted in its entirety. The ENTIRE 2nd Amen is
rightly seen as a militia amendment, not a gun amendment,
particularly when the phrase "bear arms" is properly understood
as MEANING "serve as soldier," or "render military service"
which is the RIGHT the particular individuals who qualify to
serve have -- to serve in the STATE-RUN militias -- and it is
THAT one of the rights the feds can't infringe upon, along with
the others.
Though the commas DO make a difference in structural
interpretation, the mere existence of the well-regulated-militia
and security-of-a-free-state phrases show the focus and purpose
of the 2nd Amen constitutionally, as there is NO surplusage in
the Const.
The functional sentence IS and ALWAYS WAS "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." In its entirety.
The argument does not hang exclusively on the number of
commas, but on the presence of the militia clause itself, as the
courts have confirmed, and on the meaning of the term "bear
arms" as Madison's draft confirms.
>
> BTW: You still have not answered my question. Again I ask. Point out one,
> just one, of the original debates on the second amendment where it was
> argued whether the individual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS even existed.
> State, federal or otherwise. There is no such argument.
Which is why we KNOW that THAT was NOT what the Amen was about!
Sheesh!
You want to argue by absence, by applying the "Fallacy of
Ignorance." That is, because something was not discussed, we
can't say for certain that it WASN'T ABOUT what was ignored, so
it MAY be about that! "Since you can't show them denying or even
discussing an individual right to own and carry guns (what YOU
are really talking about... see below for what THEY were talking
about in the phrase "keep and bear arms"!), we must assume that
it was a given that they accepted such!"
Sorry, but we HAVE the debates in the 1789 Congress (the House,
as the Senate kept no records of it), and the ONLY subject that
EVER came up was regarding THE MILITIA, its composition and
control. Period. When you add to that the original draft Madison
wrote, and Jefferson's call for just such an amendment, you get
a pattern that is completely oblivious to any concerns for
supposed "individual" rights for a concept ("keep and bear
arms") that was ALWAYS used in a militia context regarding
public, not private, defense.
Here's the evidence; you may refute it with some superior
substantive evidence, if you can find it:
How about the very men who debated and passed the 2nd Amen in
Congress?
(All quotes taken verbatim from "Creating the Bill of Rights"
ed. Veit, Rowling, Bickford; Debates in the House of
Representatives, August 1789; pp. 182-4, 198-9)
Rep. Boudinot said, "What dependence can be placed in men who
are conscientious in this respect? Or what justice can there be
in compelling them to bear arms, when, if they are honest men
they would rather die than use them."
By the way, if there is STILL any question about EXACTLY WHAT
"bear arms" means, READ that again:
"what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms"
Compelling them to bear arms! There is no other way to read that
phrase EXCEPT as "compelling them to possibly use firearms to
kill while serving in the militia"! Not "compelling them to
'carry a gun' on their person"... why would Congress want to
compel ANYONE to carry a gun? Need MORE proof?:
"The words 'in person' were added after the word 'arms,' (No
person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms IN
PERSON), and the amendment was adopted."
BEAR ARMS IN PERSON! THAT means, as Madison originally wrote it,
"to render military service in person"! It CAN'T just mean to
"carry a gun in person" as that MAKES NO SENSE! IN PERSON refers
to NOT paying an equivalent to serve in the militia in one's
stead; since IF YOU pay someone else to serve in your place, as
a substitute for YOUR duty, YOU don't have to serve in the
militia (bear arms) IN PERSON!
But the House REJECTED Gerry's call to drop the clause, and
passed it much as Madison wanted. We don't have the Senate
debates on precisely why THEY dropped it, although Gerry's
arguments may have been more successful there, and the Senate
tried, wherever possible, to tighten the wording and shorten the
articles.
But Gerry's fears were PRECISELY that Congress would exclude
individuals:
Rep. Gerry: "Now I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would
give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the
constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously
scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
Prevent them from "carrying guns"? Congress saying to Quakers,
"Sorry, but since you are religiously scrupulous about bearing
arms, YOU are thus to be prevented from using a hunting rifle to
shoot turkeys!"? And then go BEYOND sects KNOWN to be against
military service (e.g. Quakers, Moravians), making the same
argument to Catholics or Jews, to prevent THEM from hunting
also? HA!
NO, PREVENT THEM FROM SERVING in the militia... from BEARING
ARMS!
Gerry continuing, "Now, if we give a discretionary power to
exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we
may as well make no provision on this head;" for this reason he
wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons
belonging to a religious sect, scrupulous of bearing arms.
[Notice here that Gerry is here EQUATING "militia duty" with
"bearing arms"! "Exclude those from militia duty who have
religious scruples" = "prevent... those religiously
scrupulous... from bearing arms"! There IS no other way to read
it! They mean the same thing!]
Rep. Jackson: Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the
constitution secured an equivalent, for this reason he moved to
amend the clause... Was willing to accommodate; he thought the
expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person, upon
paying an equivalent.
Rep. Sherman: "It is well known that those who are religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting
substitutes or paying an equivalent; many of them would rather
die than do either one or the other."
(Does anyone think that all this talk about "bearing arms" has
anything here to do with merely "carrying guns"? THIS is what
the Congress debated about -- militia service ONLY -- NOT
hunting, or personal self defense! Does anyone think Quakers or
Moravians would "rather die" than "carry" a hunting gun to get a
turkey, or that they'd "rather die" than to "pay an equivalent"
to "carry" that hunting gun around for them and use it in their
stead to kill turkeys for them because THEY have religious
scruples about "carrying guns"!)
Rep. Vining: Hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it
stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to
COMPEL a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the
government, was THE SAME as if the person HIMSELF TURNED OUT TO
FIGHT. [emphasis added]
("The person himself turned out to fight." THAT is what ALL
these persons UNDERSTOOD "bearing arms" to mean! It is
inconceivable to me that anyone reading these exchanges, that
use the term "bearing arms" to ONLY mean militia service,
particularly someone who'd never seen the term "bear arms"
before, could even SUGGEST that the term means anything else --
such as "carry a gun" -- given the context and usage! Just TRY
replacing "bear arms" in these quotes with "carry guns" and see
how ludicrous it sounds!)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning
"to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter,
"OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be
engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use
of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to
all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from
1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id"
In Maryland in August 1776, Rezin Hammond "told the people
present that every man that bore arms in defense of his country
had a right to vote, and if they were allowed no vote they had
no right to bear arms." In this equation, arming bearing and
enfranchisement went hand in hand; that is, military service and
enfranchisement were linked rights. In this case, "bear arms"
had an explicit, military meaning. (From JK Rowland)
There are probably more recorded instances of non-white snow
than EVER there could be of non-military uses of "bear arms"
(NOT bear guns, or carry arms!) in pre-1800 America. Go to:
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html ; unless you think
Rowland is purposely hiding a raft of non-military cites, the
evidence is clear:
CONCLUSION
"BEAR ARMS" WAS AN UNAMBIGUOUS MILITARY CONCEPT
Summary. This paper finds that the overwhelming preponderance of
usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public
discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly
military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to
stand for military service, especially in the militia. Such
usage represented a remarkable continuity over nearly two
centuries, so much so that the phrase came to represent standard
legal terminology describing military obligation, capability,
exemption (especially for pacifists), service, and, after 1776,
constitutional right. The 300 examples represent thousands of
likely repetitions of the phrase in its military meaning,
reinforcing the definition in the minds of Americans. Of all
these usages, the "right to bear arms" formulation was the most
ambiguous because the constitutional clauses in which it
occurred often lacked sufficient context to define its meaning
clearly. However, at least one use of the phrase in Maryland in
1776 was explicitly military. Legislative drafters did sometimes
use literal language to define specific legal responsibilities
for use of weapons under the militia acts. But they employed
"bear arms" only occasionally in a literal sense, and the linked
words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military
use of weapons, or to prohibit their use. The few cases of
ambiguous meaning are only a tiny fraction of the majority and
cannot be the basis for generalizing about "bear arms"- they
were the exception, not the rule of early American legal
terminology. Therefore, this overwhelming pattern of military
context gives great weight to the conclusion that the "right to
... bear arms" in the Second Amendment had an exclusively
military meaning to the drafters and ratifiers and probable
understanding to at least a large portion of the American
population. (JK Rowland)
Get educated! Here's HUNDREDS of pre-1790 cites of the term
"bear arms" that clearly have military reference, along with
comparison to other separate uses by "carry arms" and the like.
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html
Read Rowland's essay and tell me he and I are wrong!
If there are HUNDREDS, or even thousands, of military uses in
context, and ONE or even two questionable and probably erroneous
uses pop up, do we weigh the questionable and aberrant .001%
equally with the 99.999% that show consistent legal, official,
educated, STANDARD usage?
In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was
still understood:
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no
citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided
he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we
know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we
must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th
section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A
man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his
rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said
of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol
concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Why not look at what was said about the terms from late 19th
century through early 20th century:
"see also English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1872)("The word
'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the
United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and
the word is used in its military sense."); Hill v. Georgia, 53
Ga. 472, 475 (1874) ("the language of the constitution of this
state as well as that of the United States guarantees only the
right to keep and bear the 'arms' necessary for a militiaman");
State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, 373 (1891) ("in regard to the
kind of arms protected by the [Second A]mendment, it must be
held to refer to weapons of warfare to be used by the militia");
City of Salina v. Blaksly, 72 Kan. 230, 233 (1905) (both U.S.
and Kansas Constitutions "appl[y] only to the right to bear arms
as a member of the state militia, or some other military
organization provided by law"); Ex parte Thomas, 21 Okla. 770
(1908) (interpreting Oklahoma Constitution) ("As the object for
which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general
and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for
their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is
secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized
warfare"); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 651-52 (1924) ("An
examination of the numerous authorities in various states will
show that the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by a
state constitutional provision similar to the federal amendment
refers only to the bearing of arms by the citizens in defense of
a common cause"); cf. Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the
Law of Statutory Crimes 497 (1873) (Second Amendment "protects
only the right to 'keep' such 'arms' as are used for purposes of
war . . . since such, only, are properly known by the name of
'arms;' and such, only, are adapted to promote 'the security of
a free State.' In like manner, the right to 'bear' arms refers
merely to the military way of using them. . . .); Lucilius
Emery, The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 28 Harv.
L. Rev. 473, 476 (1915) ("The single individual or the
unorganized crowd, in carrying weapons, is not spoken of or
thought of as 'bearing arms.'").
Since the term comes directly from the Latin "arma ferre" (and
has no singular; there is no "bear arm"!) how could it mean
guns, since it preceded "guns" by over a thousand years?
Oh, you want us to read "arms" out of context of the term of art
"bear arms" and just mentally translate THAT bogus trick AS
"guns" eh? No dice.
Even the word "arms" alone always included flags, ensigns,
tents, wagons, siege equipment, engineering tools, drums, etc.
all the equipage of the entire militia. But it's NOT just arms
but BEAR ARMS and THAT phrase has a whole history and meaning
that was separate from the two words making it up:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning
"to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter,
"OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be
engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use
of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to
all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from
1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id"
The term was a verb phrase, analogous today to one like
"practice medicine." Sure, if you mistakenly break down the
phrases you can get bear=carry + arms=guns = carry guns, or
practice=keep trying + medicine=pills in a bottle = keep trying
pills in a bottle. But any literate person today knows that
"practice medicine" means to serve as a doctor, just as any
literate person of 1790 knew that "bear arms" meant to serve as
a soldier.
Further to that, here's what historian Gary Wills has to say:
(http://www.potowmack.org/garwills.html)
Bear Arms. To bear arms is, in itself, a military term. One does
not bear arms against a rabbit. The phrase simply translates the
Latin arma ferre. The infinitive ferre, to bear, comes from the
verb fero. The plural noun arma explains the plural usage in
English ("arms"). One does not "bear arm." Latin arma is,
etymologically, war "equipment," and it has no singular forms."
16 By legal and other channels, arma ferre entered deeply into
the European language of war. To bear arms is such a synonym for
waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war "just-borne
arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." 17 Even outside the
phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use alone echoes Latin
phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad
arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere),
to lay down arms (arma ponere). "Arms" is a profession that one
brother chooses as another chooses law or the church. An issue
undergoes the arbitrament of arms. In the singular, English
"arm" often means a component of military force (the artillery
arm, the cavalry arm).
Thus "arms" in English, as in Latin, is not restricted to the
meaning "guns." The Romans had no guns; and they did not limit
arma to projectile weapons (spears, arrows). It meant weaponry
in general, everything from swords to siege instruments- but
especially shields. That is why the heraldic use of "arms" in
English (the very case Stephen Halbrook invokes) refers to
shields "coated" (covered) with blazonry...
(Patrick Henry tells us, the militia's arms include
"regimentals, etc." flags, ensigns, engineering tools, siege
apparatus, and other "accoutrements of war."
And "bear" can be a large land animal, and "arms" can be limbs,
so "bear arms" can be "the limbs of a large land mammal" and
THAT is the "logic" and lunacy of your method!
But it's not just "arms," loon! It's BEAR ARMS, ONE CONNECTED
PHRASE with its own consistent history!
"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall
themselves by their Hands." Declaration of Independence
Did the King make Americans merely "carry guns"? What did
TJ MEAN by "bear Arms"? IT meant forcing them "to render
military service in person," JUST the way Madison used the term!
Want HUNDREDS more examples of the "clear language" in the 2nd
Amen as used up to 1790? Go to:
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html
For a sample of the piece:
Deconstruction of the Second Amendment.
"Compounding the differences between the two approaches to the
Second Amendment is the practice of deconstructing its language,
of stripping specific words ("keep," "bear," "arms," and
"militia") from their 18th century phraseology (especially "keep
arms" and "bear arms") and examining their individual meanings
in a literal sense, sometimes explicitly but often as an
unexamined or buried assumption. Steven Halbrook is the most
forthright in his definition of "bear arms." He argues that "the
terms, 'bear arms' meant simply to carry arms," but this
conclusion is based on very little 18th century evidence and
without any recognition that "the terms" could have been a
single term used in the 18th century in a figurative sense that
would give an entirely different understanding of the Second
Amendment. Some academic historians have also assumed an
equivalence between "bear" and "carry" arms, which serves only
to confuse the issue. Writers taking this approach ignore, or
are not familiar with, the authoritative conclusions of the
Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, which
declares that "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to
serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" and that "to
bear arms against" means "to be engaged in hostilities with."
Therefore, to insist on a literal "plain reading" of the text of
the Second Amendment despite specific evidence to the contrary
is a form of constitutional literalism that, however legitimate
for extrapolation of the meaning of provisions of the
Constitution and Bill of Rights for today, may do an injustice
to the 18th century meaning of those same provisions."
"Bearing arms" is not about "carrying arms" or "kinds or arms"
or "bearing guns" but BEARING ARMS: "to serve as a soldier,
engage in hostilities with" (OED), or "to render military
service in person" (Madison).
One can be "bearing arms" against the enemy by driving or
repairing a truck, or cooking meals, as long as one is 'serving
as a soldier, doing military service' while doing those
activities, particularly if the forces are at war with each
other. It doesn't mean or require that one is packing a pistol,
and certainly doesn't mean that one is carrying ARMS, ALL the
equipage of WAR on one's person.
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
There is NOTHING in the drafting and debating and passage of the
2nd Amen that speaks about "individual gun ownership"
independent of militia service! It's all about state versus
federal control and arming of the militia, and the virtues of
militias versus standing armies, since it's a MILITIA amendment
and NOT a GUN amendment!
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military
activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages
were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Rhode Island: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Do you think that this last one means that a wealthy Quaker
could pay to have his butler march by his side to tote his rifle
around for him on the battlefield or parade grounds?
Did Quakers have "religious scruples" about "carrying guns" out
to the woods to hunt turkeys?
"Keeping arms" is a militia function, and it includes
BOTH the communal storage and "keeping up" of "arms" (which is
the ENTIRE "equipage" of warfare: cannon and balls, powder,
tents, flags, wagons, siege apparatus, engineering equipment,
regimentals, accouterments, etc.) AND the personal "keeping" of
those REGISTERED militia weapons (Militia Act of 1792) specified
by law.
This is from historian Garry Wills:
To keep. Gun advocates read "to keep and bear" disjunctively,
and think the verbs refer to entirely separate activities.
"Keep," for them, means "possess personally at home" - a lot to
load into one word. To support this entirely fanciful
construction, they have to neglect the vast literature on
militias. It is precisely in that literature that
to-keep-and-bear is a description of one connected process. To
understand what "keep" means in a military context, we must
recognize how the description of a local militia's function was
always read in contrast to the role of a standing army. Armies,
in the ideology of the time, should not be allowed to keep their
equipment in readiness...
The idea of militia "stands" in common depots or arsenals was
not confined to England. In America, the Articles of
Confederation required that "every state shall always keep up a
well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and
accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use,
in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a
proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
(equipage being etymological sense of arma). Thus it is as
erroneous to suppose that "keep" means, of itself, "keep at
home" as to think that "arms" means only guns. Patrick Henry
tells us, the militia's arms include "regimentals, etc." flags,
ensigns, engineering tools, siege apparatus, and other
"accouterments of war."
Some arms could be kept at home, of course. Some officers kept
their most valuable piece of war equipment, a good cross-country
horse, at home, where its upkeep was a daily matter feeding and
physical regimen.
But military guns were not ideally kept home. When militias were
armed, it was, so far as possible, with guns of standard issue,
interchangeable parts, uniform in their shot, upkeep and
performance - the kind of "firelocks" Trenchard wanted kept "in
every parish" (not every home). The contrast with armies was not
to be in performance (Trenchard and others boasted of the high
degree of efficient organization in militias). The contrast was
in continuity. The militia was always at the ready, its arms
"kept." Armies came and went - their "continuation" was what
Trenchard attacked...
To keep-and-bear arms was the distinguishing note of the
militia's permanent readiness, as opposed to the army's duty of
taking up and laying down ("deponing" is Trenchard's word) their
arms in specific wars. The militia was maintained on a
continuing basis, its arsenal kept up, its readiness expressed
in the complex process specified by "keep-and-bear." To separate
one term from this context and treat it as specifying a
different right (of home possession) is to impart into the
language something foreign to each term in itself, to the
conjunction of terms, and to the entire context of Madison's
sentence.
"It is possible, and likely, that the "keep arms" component was
also understood in early America in an exclusively military
context. This is especially likely since virtually every militia
act used the word "keep" or a close synonym to describe the
requirement to own or have custody of a weapon and maintain it
for military use. And there is no doubt that Americans like John
Adams, the author of the Massachusetts bill of rights of 1780
which was the first to use "keep arms" as part of a
constitutional guarantee, saw the English common law
implications of the phrase. However, like "bear arms," "keep
arms" was American terminology, as opposed to the English "have
arms" expression. Therefore, it is time to relook at the Second
Amendment and reconstruct this badly deconstructed article of
the Bill of Rights in a military context." (J.K.Rowland)
There is NOTHING in the drafting and debating and passage of the
2nd Amen in 1789 that speaks about "individual gun ownership"
independent of militia service! It's all about state versus
federal control and arming of the militia, and the virtues of
militias versus standing armies, since it's a MILITIA amendment
and NOT a GUN amendment!
Since it's BEAR ARMS and not CARRY GUNS, the military context is
clear and absolute. See the above definitions and cites.
"A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry
his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be
said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said
that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or
pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
The "People" with the Jus Militiae right to "keep and bear arms"
(which means BOTH to maintain the upkeep OF, AND to serve IN,
the militia) was the enfranchised body politic, essentially the
same free white males who could vote, and serve in office,
juries, and the militia, the able-bodied of those who qualified
for the militia being OBLIGATED to do so as a DUTY; Congress
could not infringe on that right by making it moot by FAILING to
fulfill their constitutional duty to ARM, ORGANIZE, and
DISCIPLINE the Militia, which is what Mason and the anti-feds
were concerned about, and WHY the 2nd Amen was written and
passed.
Those individuals who qualified for "bearing arms" (serving)
within a well-regulated militia could not be deprived of owning
and storing at home THOSE weapons in service to the militia,
such weapons being inspected and "enrolled" (registered) each
year during the call up for drilling and taking a "return of
militia" to maintain a record of the inventory of men and
weapons the state had at its disposal (Militia Act of 1792).
Some rights, as that of "THE People" to keep and bear arms, are
of "the people at large," the collective jus militiae right of
"the people at large" as the "populus armatus" to be involved in
the state's (or nation's) military function, by establishing,
arming, controlling, maintaining the upkeep and readiness of the
militia, ("keeping arms" as John Adams meant it) and serving (if
qualified) as citizen-soldiers (as opposed to "regular"
professional soldiers in a standing army) drawn from "the body
of the people," and "trained to arms" and "enrolled" into an
organized, "well-regulated" state militia ("bearing arms" as
Madison meant it). (The INDIVIDUAL right Madison wanted was the
conscientious objector right that the House OK'd but the Senate
removed.)
The right "to keep and bear arms" was in the context of the
citizen soldier of the conscript militia. In the 18th century
private arms were never strictly private. The public had
a claim for public purposes. Which is why the Militia Act of
1792 directed each qualified man to enroll (i.e. register)
himself AND his MILITIA WEAPONS and ACCESSORIES each year at
muster, or be fined for failure to, and such inventory of ALL
the men and arms was reported to the state's gov and the US
prez, so that THEY would know on what resources they could call
on in case of need, including private arms!
OF COURSE "THE People" have the right "to keep and bear arms"
since THAT is what the 2nd Amen SAYS. It's just that "THE
People" doesn't mean EVERYONE, taken as discreet individuals,
but rather the enfranchised body politic, collectively as the
"populus armatus," and "keep and bear arms" doesn't mean "own
and carry guns"!
And the RIGHT is the "JUS MILITIAE right" of THE PEOPLE,
collectively, as the enfranchised body politic, as the "populus
armatus," as "THE WHOLE PEOPLE," to participate in their state's
or nation's military function, by establishing, arming,
controlling, and maintaining the "upkeep and readiness" of the
militia, and serving (if qualified) as citizen-soldiers (as
opposed to "regular" professional soldiers in a standing army)
drawn from "the body of the people," and "trained to arms" and
"enrolled" into an organized, "well-regulated" state militia, as
opposed to leaving it only to professional soldiers to serve as
hired retainers of the sovereign in a military run solely BY
that sovereign.
Of course, historically and legally, this "right" preceded the
Constitution, since state militias pre-dated the Revolutionary
War! What Mason and Henry wanted was to make sure that the
pre-existing right of the states to keep and maintain their
militias was not infringed by the new federal government, and
thus the right of those qualified to serve in the militia was
not made moot by their failure to be properly and sufficiently
armed by Congress.
No clearer example of this can be found than Jefferson's own
comments on the BoR, written while he was Prez, just a decade
after it was ratified:
Want to know EXACTLY what TJ, writing to Madison from Paris,
recommended as NECESSARY in a Bill of Rights? NOT anything about
personal gun ownership or individual gun rights.
Jefferson's seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR
process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802. It,
like the other six letters (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88,
7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at:
http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff.htm:
"One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected.
It is the following, ` ` and all say it was yourself more than
any other individual, that planned and established it " i. e.,
the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was
planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On
receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of
provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a
standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all
rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly
moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments,
which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now
stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the
Constitution."
Notice, as mentioned, the purpose of the 2nd Amen was ONLY "the
substitution of militia for a standing army," with no mention of
"guns" or "individual rights"! Again, in EACH letter, each time
he brings up his concerns for why a BoR is desired, the ONLY
concern he ever brings up regarding what was to become the 2nd
Amen is his concern over "standing armies" and NEVER gun
ownership per se or any individual rights in that regard!
According to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the
substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an
express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically
granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the]
amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as
they now stand."
So there you have perhaps TJ's only specific comments on the 2nd
Amen itself, why HE proposed it, and what were the purposes of
the amendments AS ratified.
> Mark
The Lone Weasel
news:41BFB167...@Krulick.com:
I don't know what Murkie's talking about because I just said
the punctuation doesn't matter much because the clerks who
copied the BoR when it was passed around the various state
ratifying conventions apparently didn't produce perfect
reproductions. The variant texts are not all available, and
because the sentence is not ambiguous the punctuation plays no
decisive role.
Parum differunt quae re concordant. Things differ but little
which agree in substance. 2 Buls. 86.
Markie's own source, William Rawle, notes the corellation
between the first part of the sentence and the last. Something
gunloons pretend not to understand, so it's hard to know what
Markie had in mind citing Rawle.
Cavendum est a fragmentis. Beware of fragments. Bacon, Aph.
26.
> According to the parchment copy of the BoR behind
> bullet-proof glass in the National Archives, THE official
> BoR, there are three commas. Go to:
>
> http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charter
> s/charters_downloads.html
>
> It's a hi-res photo of THE Bill of Rights, the one in THE
> National Archives, the one in THE bullet-proof, bomb-proof,
> inert-gas-filled case. One can make out THREE commas in
> "Article the fourth..." which is the 2nd Amen as ratified!
>
> If this ISN'T the authentic BOR, well, then we're spending
> an AWFUL lot of money protecting the WRONG Bill of Rights
> in the National Archives, aren't we! Is there a MORE
> correct and MORE original one, lurking around somewhere,
> that we don't know about, and letting it rot?
>
> So Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House, and
> John Adams, President of the Senate, just signed off on an
> INACCURATE LEGAL DOCUMENT? IF it were incorrect, how long
> do you think it would have been before someone (like one of
> the Senators or Reps who CERTAINLY knew what the correct
> version was) pointed it out to the scribe to correct? A
> day? A week? A year? A century?
>
> Then go to
> http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charter
> s/bill_of_rights_transcript.html to read the transcript,
--
Steve Krulick
>
> Steve Krulick <S...@Krulick.com> wrote in
> news:41BFB167...@Krulick.com:
>
> > Mark2101 wrote:
[redacted for space]
> >> > Good, Markie; we just disabused thousands of gunloons of
> >> > the crackpot notion that the punctuation in the Second
> >> > Amendment makes it mean something more, when really the
> >> > clerks who copied the Bill of Rights weren't
> >> > particularly careful about their use of punctuation. It
> >> > wasn't fully standardized in the late 18th C. so we have
> >> > to rely on just the words and the ordinary syntax, which
> >> > were not monkeyed around with, to know what the Second
> >> > Amendment and the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution
> >> > actually say and mean.
> >>
> >> No, you just said it meant the something regardless of
> >> punctuation. You can't now claim that one way of
> >> punctuating it means something more, or less. Sorry, it
> >> doesn't work that way.
> >
> > HERE is how it works, Lee's opinion notwithstanding:
>
> I don't know what Murkie's talking about because I just said
> the punctuation doesn't matter much because the clerks who
> copied the BoR when it was passed around the various state
> ratifying conventions apparently didn't produce perfect
> reproductions. The variant texts are not all available, and
> because the sentence is not ambiguous the punctuation plays no
> decisive role.
Well, I've argued previously that, although the WORDS THEMSELVES
IN CONTEXT are SO clearly militia-related, and speak of militia
service and maintenance, independent of the punctuation, that we
KNOW that it is a militia amendment addressing a collective
right of THE PEOPLE (the body politic) to preserve the primacy
of the well regulated state militias from federal infringement,
the grammar and punctuation, as clearly visible on THE
authoritative BoR signed by Speaker Muhlenberg and VP Adams and
in the National Archives, SUPPORTS this interpretation even more
strongly, as it makes the removal of the first half
grammatically impossible, since the comma in the middle of the
second half makes THAT half a NOT independent sentence!
To say that the existence of variant reproductions negates the
authority of the original is like saying that having a
counterfeit $20 in your pocket makes the other REAL $20 bills
worthless! The BoR in the Archives, the versions printed in NY
where the Congress was, and the version in the United States
Gazette all show the canonical version and, although my analysis
doesn't require the commas to prove it is a militia amendment,
it is confirming evidence, so I will continue to point it out.
Yes, the words themselves ARE decisive, but the commas enforce
the claim.
>
> Parum differunt quae re concordant. Things differ but little
> which agree in substance. 2 Buls. 86.
>
> Markie's own source, William Rawle, notes the corellation
> between the first part of the sentence and the last. Something
> gunloons pretend not to understand, so it's hard to know what
> Markie had in mind citing Rawle.
Hell, they cite COCKRUM (cf Mayerloon) as if it supports THEM!
They cite butchered versions of Madison's Fed #46 as if it
supports THEM! They cite Gallatin and Hamilton and Adams and
others with no comprehension of how it undermines their claims,
because they are illiterate and reading challenged zombies who
accept without question the bilge their hoplosexual lords shovel
on research-free sites!
> Cavendum est a fragmentis. Beware of fragments. Bacon, Aph.
> 26.
Amen!
[non-grammar related material redacted]
RD (The Sandman)
Interesting that the part of the Second Amendment that actually
addresses the right to keep and bear arms has never had a comma in it.
It has always read ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
Steve Krulick
Where do you get this shit, Sandy? (Notwithstanding that the
meaning of "THE PEOPLE" and "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" already
determines that this is primarily a collective right regarding
preservation of the militia!)
Why don't you just follow the URL's to the National Archives
site and see for yourself?
I repeat:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/charters_downloads.html
Amendment I
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.
Amendment II
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.
...
Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from
the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress
proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in
the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C."
Visit the Newseum in Arlington VA. They have a copy
of the United States Gazette, Sept 23, 1789, which has the
passed articles being sent to the states for ratification; this
authoritative publication has the future 2nd Amen exactly the
same way as above, with THREE commas. So do the broadsheets
printed in New York City, then the site of the Congress.
The Courts have accepted this as the authoritative version:
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
"... the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- '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.'"
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"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." U.S. Const. amend. II.
Even the arch-individual-rights proponent Neil Schulman,
frequently cited, uses the "canonical" version of the 2nd Amen!:
"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.'
So, the US Government seems to disagree with you about the
commas! But even if we allow for printer error in remote states,
or possible variations making their way through Congress as the
article was modified:
IF the use of MORE commas, including the one between "arms"
and "shall," was bad grammar and without purpose, in and of
itself, why did they EVER appear at all, anywhere? IF they
served NO purpose, why did anyone use them even once? IF it was
inherently ungrammatical, how would any of these educated
gentlemen let it slip by in official documentation even once?
Surely SOMEONE would have had it stricken SOMEWHERE very early
on if that were so!
The functional sentence IS and ALWAYS WAS "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." In its entirety.
At LEAST, Schulman uses the "canonical" version of the 2nd Amen,
the one IN the BOR encased in the National Archives, the one in
the United States Gazette of Sept. 23, 1789, the one forwarded
on to the states for ratification, as shown in the copies
printed in New York; some disingenuous obfuscators claim that
there IS no comma between Arms and shall, or between Militia and
necessary, which CAN affect the grammatical analysis to some
degree.
Because there ARE three commas, four clauses/phrases, it could
just as clearly be written:
"A well regulated militia, ... , shall not be infringed."
Further to this grammatical analysis, from
http://www.potowmack.org/yass.html:
At the same time the congressional drafters switched the order
of the clauses, they inserted two unusual commas that further
emphasize the framers' intention to prevent federal interference
with the militia. Under ordinary usage, the first and third
commas in the Amendment are unnecessary. If these commas had not
been inserted, it would be possible to understand the Well
Regulated Militia Clause as simply explaining the rationale for
the Bear Arms Clause (the Amendment would then read: "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."). But the commas are in fact in the text proposed
by Congress and ratified by the states, and they prevent this
reading. The first unusual comma - between "Militia" and "being"
- forces the reader to search for a verb for which "Militia" is
the subject. That verb does not appear until "shall not be
infringed" near the end of the Amendment.
The second unusual comma - between "Arms" and "shall" - sets off
the verb phrase "shall not be infringed" from the preceding
language; it suggests that the subject for this verb phrase is
not simply "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The
"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 first two phrases are related to each other. The fact that
the third phrase is separated from the verbal phrase by a comma
indicates that the verbal phrase has more than the third phrase
as its subject. The abbreviated grammatical construction
actually renders the meaning of the Second Amendment as:
"Neither a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, nor the right of the people to keep
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
The Lone Weasel
Well, I didn't say that. I just said you can't make any
definitive claim about the punctuation until you've examined
all the extant copies; I read that five states lost their
copy of the BoR, so that leaves 8 state copies and one
federal copy if we wanted to study the punctuation.
Which nobody except gunloons care to do.
> The BoR in the Archives, the versions
> printed in NY where the Congress was, and the version in
> the United States Gazette all show the canonical version
> and, although my analysis doesn't require the commas to
> prove it is a militia amendment, it is confirming evidence,
> so I will continue to point it out.
>
> Yes, the words themselves ARE decisive, but the commas
> enforce the claim.
A statute is best explained by following the construction
put upon it by judges who lived at the time it was made, or
soon after. - Legal Maxim, Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 682)
The commas might as well be fly shit.
>> Parum differunt quae re concordant. Things differ but
>> little which agree in substance. 2 Buls. 86.
>>
>> Markie's own source, William Rawle, notes the corellation
>> between the first part of the sentence and the last.
>> Something gunloons pretend not to understand, so it's hard
>> to know what Markie had in mind citing Rawle.
>
> Hell, they cite COCKRUM (cf Mayerloon) as if it supports
> THEM! They cite butchered versions of Madison's Fed #46 as
> if it supports THEM! They cite Gallatin and Hamilton and
> Adams and others with no comprehension of how it undermines
> their claims, because they are illiterate and reading
> challenged zombies who accept without question the bilge
> their hoplosexual lords shovel on research-free sites!
>
>> Cavendum est a fragmentis. Beware of fragments. Bacon,
>> Aph. 26.
>
> Amen!
>
>> > According to the parchment copy of the BoR behind
>> > bullet-proof glass in the National Archives, THE
>> > official BoR, there are three commas. Go to:
>> >
>> >
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/char
>> > ter s/charters_downloads.html
>> >
>> > It's a hi-res photo of THE Bill of Rights, the one in
>> > THE National Archives, the one in THE bullet-proof,
>> > bomb-proof, inert-gas-filled case. One can make out
>> > THREE commas in "Article the fourth..." which is the 2nd
>> > Amen as ratified!
>> >
>> > If this ISN'T the authentic BOR, well, then we're
>> > spending an AWFUL lot of money protecting the WRONG Bill
>> > of Rights in the National Archives, aren't we! Is there
>> > a MORE correct and MORE original one, lurking around
>> > somewhere, that we don't know about, and letting it rot?
>> >
>> > So Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House,
>> > and John Adams, President of the Senate, just signed off
>> > on an INACCURATE LEGAL DOCUMENT? IF it were incorrect,
>> > how long do you think it would have been before someone
>> > (like one of the Senators or Reps who CERTAINLY knew
>> > what the correct version was) pointed it out to the
>> > scribe to correct? A day? A week? A year? A century?
>> >
>> > Then go to
>> >
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/char
>> > ter s/bill_of_rights_transcript.html to read the
--
The Lone Weasel
news:aeqdnfRJI5o...@comcast.com:
There's always been a comma after "Militia", "State", and
"Arms".
"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."
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-
madison2/bill_of_rights_text.htm
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/billofrights.htm
Which is not to say punctuation has any dterminative meaning
re the militia amendment.
How'd you get out of my killfile, you punkass sandshitting
troll?
Plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk.
RD (The Sandman)
Yep, my bad.
> "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."
>
> http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-
> madison2/bill_of_rights_text.htm
>
> http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/billofrights.htm
>
> Which is not to say punctuation has any dterminative meaning
> re the militia amendment.
Correct.
> How'd you get out of my killfile, you punkass sandshitting
> troll?
I don't know, learn to use your reader.......
> Plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk.
Maybe that will work.....yeah, that's the ticket.... ;)
Yardpilot
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C07FA7DFB4B...@130.133.1.4...
> Which is not to say punctuation has any dterminative meaning
> re the militia amendment.
What "Militia Amendment?"
You Know Who
wrote:
He's hallucinating again. His blood sugar levels must have fallen.
Get him a boxcar of doughnuts! Stat!
Yardpilot
"You Know Who" <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:g7vgs09t1setbtu7e...@4ax.com...
Let's just have them delivered in slurry form by the tank car load. We can
pump the sludge into one end, and aim the other at some appropriate target
to be named later.