[MiSTied] 2nd Ammendment..an historical study
Keith Williams
MiSTing (sniff), but I carried on anyway.
This one is gruesome, hideous and might offend the politically impaired,
but those are the three main reasons for doing this, right?
Enjoy.
-K
--
"Maybe all I need / besides my pills / and surgery / is a new metaphor
for reality."
- Queensryche -- "Disconnected" -- Promised Land
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[] Kurris (aka Keith Williams) will...@aix.wingra.com []
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Love Theme of MST3K ]
[ ...6...5...4...3...2...1...<> ]
[ SOL Bridge -- Tom and Crow are deep in discussion ]
CROW: Like I'm going to believe Mike likes you better.
SERVO: [looking up and away] Hey, I just thought you should know the truth.
He only puts up with you 'cause he thinks he might need your parts
for rocket number nine, or something.
CROW: Oh, you're lying.
[ Mike wanders into the frame ]
MIKE: Hey, guys, what mischief are you up to today?
CROW: Mike, do you hate me?
MIKE: What?
SERVO: It's okay, Mike, I've already told him. He just can't accept it.
CROW: [with increasing distress] It can't be true. Mike, tell me it's not
true!
MIKE: There, there, little buddy. I don't hate you.
CROW: [to Tom] See!!
MIKE: It's only that I might need your parts for repairs someday.
CROW: *WHAT*?!!?
SERVO: I *told* you so.
MIKE: It's no big deal, really.
CROW: Aaaah!
[ Crow looks around hastily and dashes out of the frame ]
VOICE: Commercial sign in ten seconds.
MIKE: Wow, I didn't think he would take it so hard.
SERVO: Aw, you have to expect that from the likes of him.
MIKE: [shrugs] I guess. I'm just glad *you* don't act like that.
VOICE: Commercial sign in five seconds.
SERVO: What? ME?!!?
MIKE: [smiling] We'll be right back.
VOICE: Commercial sign now.
< Commercials >
[ Crow is slapping Mike. Tom is butting him with his head ]
MIKE: Hey! Come on guys, that hurts.
SERVO: Mess with our delicate emotions, eh?
CROW: This'll teach you! [smacks Mike in the stomach]
[ Mad's light flashes ]
MIKE: Cool it, Maurice and Finnigan are calling.
[ Deep 13 -- Dr. F and Frank are standing side-by-side. The camera is
slightly askew. They are both smiling idiotically. ]
[ The camera slowly tilts. Dr. F and Frank continue to smile. ]
[ SOL ]
MIKE: Uh, are you okay, sirs?
[ Deep 13 ]
[ The camera tilts back the other way, just a slowly ]
[ SOL ]
SERVO: Um, yeah.
MIKE: Maybe we should go first this time.
CROW: Good idea.
[ Crow darts off the screen. Tom does likewise, in the other direction.
Mike crouches down behind the console. A few seconds go by. ]
[ Mike pops up and the 'bots rush in from either side. Mike is wearing what
looks like a paper cutout of a tuxedo, attached with masking tape to the
front of his jumpsuit. Tom is wearing a cutout that resembles Tweeky.
Crow has a piece of notebook paper taped to his torso. ]
MIKE: Our invention this week is...
[ Cut -- Deep 13 ]
[ The camera settles into its original position. Dr. F and Frank slowly turn
their heads to look at each other. Just as slowly, they turn back to the
camera ]
[ SOL ]
CROW: I can't stand it! Just what the heck is wrong with them?
SERVO: Yeah Mike, they're scaring me.
MIKE: I have no idea. Sirs...?
[ Deep 13 ]
[ With agonizing slowness, Dr. F's smile fades ]
DR. F: Ah, Joel, how are things today?
[ SOL ]
[ Crow and Tom double-take on Mike ]
MIKE: And I thought *I* would be the first to go.
[ Deep 13 ]
[ Frank continues to smile at the camera ]
DR. F: No time for an invention exchange this week, I'm afraid, although I
*do* like your new outfit.
[ SOL ]
SERVO: Figures, we go to all this trouble and *he* decides there's no time
for an exchange.
CROW: And I spent *hours* on mine!
[ Mike and Tom look at Crow in disbelief. ]
CROW: Well, I did.
SERVO: Oh, come on, that's just a piece of notebook paper.
CROW: Is not!
[ Deep 13 ]
DR. F: Never mind that. Today's post is a thinly veiled attempt at trying
to raise the ire of the American people by casting aspersions on the
second amendment. It's long and it's tedious. And it's just for
you. Send it to 'em, Frank.
[ Frank's smile slowly fades ]
FRANK: Oh, hi Joel.
[ SOL ]
MIKE: Did I fall asleep, or something?
SERVO: I think it's the radiation down there. It's finally getting to them.
CROW: Either that, or they've started sampling the magic mushrooms.
[ Lights, Camera, ACTION!! ]
ALL: WE HAVE POSTING SIGN!!!
[ <>...1...2...3...4...5...6... ]
> Article: 64874 of alt.conspiracy
CROW: Sure are a lot of people seeking alternative conspiracies.
SERVO: Yeah, nobody's satisfied with traditional conspiracies any more.
> Path: news.cic.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
> swiss.ans.net!potogold.rmii.com!slip870.rmii.com!cbullard
> From: cbul...@rmii.com (Charles G. Bullard)
CROW: Does that mean we should be ready for a load of bull?
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
> Subject: 2nd Ammendment..an historical study
SERVO: "An historical," kinda says it all right there, doesn't it?
MIKE: Too true.
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 09:53:35
> Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Inc.
SERVO: Where REO Speedwagon goes for *all* their Internet needs.
> Lines: 339
ALL: *groan*
> Message-ID: <cbullard....@rmii.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip870.rmii.com
> X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
MIKE: Appropriate fanfare, please.
>
>
> TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
SERVO: Not to actually *achieve* a new understanding, mind you.
CROW: No, just point us in the general direction and we'll find our way.
>
> -BY-
> David T. Hardy
MIKE: Which makes this post hardly worth reading, eh?
SERVO & CROW: [groan]
>
>
> Nearly two centuries ago,
CROW: We decided that it was time to brew a better beer.
> the American people voted to guarantee that
SERVO: Possession is 9/10's of the law.
> "A
> well regulated militia being necessary to a free State, the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," a statement which
CROW: Makes a lot more sense if you put the words into a hat and pull them
out randomly.
> remains one of the most controversial provisions of our bill of rights.
SERVO: Hey, bill, what'dya know?
> Opponents of gun ownership usually emphasise the "well regulated militia"
> clause,
CROW: But a few blows to the head will clear that right up.
> and claim the second amendment was intended to protect only
> National Guard units.
MIKE: Who already *have* guns, so don't really need protecting.
> Gunowners usually stress the "right of the people to
> keep and bear arms,"
CROW: Mike, wouldn't it be painful for people to bear arms?
MIKE: You bet, Crow, that's why guns are usually adopted.
> and conclude that the amendment was logically meant
> to protect an individual right to own and use arms.
SERVO: Hey, I say, if you got 'em, you might as well use 'em. I sure wish
*I* had 'em! [sobbing] Why, oh, why was I cursed with these damned
inoperable arms?!!?
MIKE: [patting Tom on the back] It's okay, buddy, let it out.
>
> Both approaches assume that the second amendment's two clauses had but one
> purpose,
CROW: But that ignores the second amendment's hidden agenda, which we will
be covering later.
> and protect either organized reserve units, or the individual gun
> owner. Yet would the First Congress have used two different clauses to
> state one idea?
SERVO: Yes! How else could they promote misinformation and distrust among
the populace?
MIKE: Uh, Tom...
SERVO: Come on Mike, a little McCarthyism never hurt anyone, right?
MIKE: I don't know about *that*.
> It was a ruthless editor,
CROW: Damn that Perry White!
> deleting several of Madison's
> amendments entirely and abbreviating the second amendment from his 46
> words down to the final 24.
CROW: [as editor] What? You want that everyone should fall asleep reading
this thing, or what?
> Would two clauses that said the same thing
> have survived this ordeal?
ALL: NO!!
>
> Resolving this problem requires investigation,
MIKE: And just a hint of basal.
> not just of the second
> amendment, but of the history of our concept of freedom.
SERVO: Join Time/Life books as we delve into the dark corners of what *is*
our concept of freedom.
> This
> investigation proves that the first Congress kept
CROW: Pelting Madison with spitballs whenever he tried to add clauses to
the Constitution.
> both the militia and
> right to arms clauses because each establishes a different principle,
SERVO: The principle of particle acceleration along a linear path. Of
course this *too* was edited out of the final version.
> and
> each had a distinct history, philosophy, and constituency.
MIKE: Not to mention their own ideas about interior decorating.
> But to see
> this, we have to carefully examine the different histories of each portion
> of the second amendment.
SERVO: Theorizing that one could travel through time in one's own lifetime...
CROW: The second amendment stepped into the BadPost accelerator and...
MIKE: Vanished?!!?
SERVO & CROW: WE WISH!!
>
> THE MILITIA AND THE FREE STATE
SERVO: Or "The Goose and the Golden Egg."
>
> The origin of the militia clause lies,
CROW: It does, I tell you, it lies, it *lies*. You can't trust it! I'm
warning you, you just can't trust it!!
> not in America nor even in England,
> but
MIKE: In a quaint little Mexican place just outside of San Juan.
> in the medieval Italian city-state of Florence.
SERVO: Monday through Thursday, Florence the city. Friday through Sunday,
Florence the state.
MIKE: Get your tickets today.
> Historians have long
> known that around the year 1400,
CROW: Benedictine monks demonstrated the world's first wet-willy.
> while most of Europe was under monarchy,
MIKE: And the rest were under the weather.
> Florence suddenly became a "think tank"
SERVO: Transformed *right before your very eyes*!!
> for republican thought. The reason
> was only recently discovered.
MIKE: Unearthed in a jar that had been mislabeled as Mama Tish's Lemon Ice.
> In 1399,
SERVO: [singing] I want to party like it's 1399.
> Florence was menaced by the forces
CROW: Of the evil galactic empire.
> of Giangaleazzo Visconti, who nearly established himself as monarch of
> half of Italy,
SERVO: This half's *mine*!
> and whose propagandists portrayed him as a modern Caesar.
MIKE: Which turned out to be an ill omen, since he was later found stabbed
to death.
> The Florentines--who included the greatest writers of the age
CROW: Unfortunately, that age was six.
> --responded
> by portraying their government as the noble descendant of the Roman
> republic.
SERVO: We all know now, however, that it was actually the bastard child of
the Roman republic.
> Visconti died, a failure, in 1402;
MIKE: But his fan club carried on for almost ten years after his death.
CROW: Yeah, with many members claiming to have seen him working in local
pizza places long after his *reported* death.
> but the legacy of Florence's
> crisis remained. To a Florentine, patriotism and republicanism were
> identical.
SERVO: Which caused quite a bit of confusion at that year's family reunion.
>
> Over the next century
MIKE: Almost a hundred years passed.
> Florentines developed the theory of a republic.
CROW: Actually, they stole the idea from a guy in Greece, but no charges
were filed.
> Their most widely read author was Nicolo Machiavelli, who argued
CROW: With himself out loud, and in public, often jumping on tables to
emphasize a point that he was making to himself.
> that
> only a militia, a universal citizen army, could support a republic.
SERVO: And even then, they would have to take their Flintstone vitamins and
exercise regularly.
> Machiavelli argued that a weak mercenary army was useless to a republic,
MIKE: You're worthless and weak. Now drop and give me twenty.
> while a strong one would overthrow it. Only when the citizens and the
> military were the same could
CROW: You count on getting your parking tickets fixed.
> the army be both powerful and safe: "Rome
> remained free for 400 years and Sparta for 800,
CROW: Hey! I thought length didn't matter.
> although their citizens
> were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed
> have lost their liberties in less than forty years." Arms also gave
> citizens the
SERVO: Ability to touch their noses when confronted with the previously
hideous DUI test.
> will to defend their rights: only the armed have
> virtu--pride, freedom and boldness:
CROW: That's right, without guns, swords and knives you're all a bunch of
weak-kneed pansies just *waiting* to be melvined!
> "among the other dangers of being
> disarmed, it causes you to be despised."
CROW: Hey, Tom, any of this bugging you yet.
SERVO: SHUT UP!
MIKE: Come on, Crow, be nice.
CROW: I was just asking.
>
> Machiavelli's republicanism entered English political thought through
MIKE: The English Channel.
> James Harrington, a remarkable political thinker of the 1650's.
SERVO: Remarkable in that he wasn't born until the late 1700's.
> Harrington
> argued that a stable republic rested upon the triple relationship of
CROW: Blood, guts and glory.
> land
> ownership (representing economic power), voting rights (representing
> political power) and militia duty (representing physical power). Let
> landowners be given the franchise
MIKE: And organized sports will go right down the crapper.
> and organized into a militia, and the
> republic would be forever secure.
SERVO: Which is why there are so many successful republic's around today.
> "Men accustomed to their arms and their
> liberties will never endure the yoke."
CROW: They obviously didn't have Good Eggs back then.
> Harrington's followers--who became
> known as the Classical Republicans--
SERVO: As contrasted with the Rap Republicans, who became popular a few
years later.
> expanded upon his theme: "democracy is
> much more powerful than aristocracy,
MIKE: But only if you do *exactly* what I say.
> " Henry Neville wrote, "because the
> latter cannot arm the people for fear they could seize upon the
> government."
SERVO: Hey, we've got to skee-dattle.
[ ...6...5...4...3...2...1...<> ]
CROW: Soo, Tommy-boy, what's your take on this post?
SERVO: Well, I think the author makes some good points.
CROW: Yeah? Me too. Personally, I *like* having arms.
[ Tom begins to shake ]
MIKE: Easy, fella [comforts Tom]. Crow, you should try to be more
sensitive. You know how Tom gets.
CROW: Hey, I was just saying...Ah, never mind.
MIKE: [to Tom] You all right, buddy?
SERVO: Yeah, it's okay, I can take it.
CROW: Really?
SERVO: Sure, its no big deal.
CROW: So Tom, when were *you* disarmed?
MIKE: CROW!!
< Commercials >
[ Mike is standing between Crow and Tom, his arms extended, keeping them
away from each other. Crow is taunting Tom by waving his arms around,
while Tom continually tries to get around Mike. ]
SERVO: I'll *show* you what I can do without arms, you goldplated ninny!
MIKE: Boys, boys, it's not nice to fight.
CROW: Tommy's got no arms! Tommy's got no arms!
SERVO: [sobbing] Mike, make him stop!!
MIKE: [to Crow] Cut it out. [to camera] Kids can be *so* cruel.
[ Lights begin a'flashin', sirens begin a'screamin' ]
ALL: WE'VE GOT POSTING SIGN!!
[ <>...1...2...3...4...5...6... ]
MIKE: Now, you're going to be nice from now on, right Crow?
CROW: Sure, I was just kidding.
>
> In England, the Classical Republicans were the proverbial day late and
> dollar short.
SERVO: Wouldn't that be "pound" short?
> England had long had a militia.
MIKE: Since before lunch, even.
> As early as the seventh
> century, all freemen were required to serve in the fyrd, or militia, and
> to own arms.
CROW: This created quite a black market for arms, since people normally
only had the two, and, well, you know, keeping up with the Jones'
and all that...
> But by the Harrington's time
SERVO: Approximately 3:45 pm.
> these traditional duties were
> being supplanted by a standing army.
MIKE: Who were becoming quite irate, since they couldn't sit down.
> Only in the American colonies did
> Harringtonian thought take hold; John Adams, our second President, was not
> the only American who claimed he learned politics from Harrington.
CROW: But he was the first to do so while wearing a dress.
>
> The experiences of our Revolution reinforced the militia ideal.
SERVO: A militia with a wife, two cars, a house and 2.3 children.
> Historian
> Donald Higginbotham has called the American militia "absolutely essential
CROW: For a successful luncheon buffet.
> to the launching and continuance of the Revolution," for it stripped Tory
MIKE: Welles of her inhibi...Oops, wrong Tori.
> forces of their home ground and created an insoluable supply problem which
SERVO: Later turned into a commercial retailer's bonanza!
> would have ended the war even without victory by Washington's army.
>
> But while republicanism and the militia concept were a vital
CROW: If hopelessly twisted.
> component of revolutionary American political thought, they were not
MIKE: Understood by their mothers.
> early Americans' only philosophy, nor the only link between arms and
> freedom.
CROW: Again with the arms thing. This has *got* to be getting to you, Tom.
SERVO: LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
MIKE: Crow, you promised.
CROW: Oh, all right.
>
> THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ARMS
MIKE: Or, how to establish residency in a culturally mixed neighborhood.
SERVO & CROW: *What*?!!?
>
> The republican concept stressed stability and the survival of the state;
SERVO: Two ideas that the American people were totally opposed to.
CROW: Yeah, so we had to beat it into them.
> it saw a free state as one preserved from outside occupation and internal
> tyranny.
> In the 18th century, Enlightenment, or "radical" thought added a
MIKE: A bit of spice to an otherwise dreary century.
> new dimension:
CROW: The Twilight Zone.
> a free state was one where individuals retained certain
> rights even as against the government they elected.
SERVO: Like the right to shut up and like it.
CROW: Or the right to practice blind conformity.
MIKE: And the right to dictate our fascist policies to the global community.
SERVO: Huh?
CROW: Where'd *that* come from?
MIKE: Sorry guys, I guess I just got carried away.
>
> But what individual rights were beyond the powers even of a free Republic?
SERVO: The right to go swimming right after lunch?
CROW: The right to decide who lives and who dies?
> The most basic answer: "unalienable" rights, those no human could give up
> or alienate.
MIKE: Let's hear it for that astonishingly lucid definition of
"unalienable."
SERVO & CROW: Here, here!
> This concept came from Harrington's contemporary, Thomas
> Hobbes.
CROW: Who had stolen it from his buddy Calvin.
SERVO: After calling him a ninny-head.
> Hobbes contended that governments were founded for one reason--
CROW: To supply him with tunafish sandwiches.
MIKE: Uh, how many Calvin & Hobbes fans are out there, do you think?
> to
> safeguard each citizen against violence. The right to defend oneself if
SERVO: No one else is willing to.
> the government failed to do so was thus unalienable: if the government
> failed to protect, it had already breached its contract with the citizen.
CROW: Yeah, but can you sue the government for breach of contract?
MIKE: Well, you can always get a divorce.
SERVO: But that's bad for the children.
MIKE: True.
> "A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void...
> For the right men have by Nature to defend themselves, when none else can
> protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished."
CROW: But what if I *want* to relinquish it?
SERVO: You can't.
CROW: But I want to.
SERVO: So? You can't.
CROW: But...
SERVO: LISTEN, I SAID YOU CAN'T! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LEARN [Mike grabs
Tom and soothes him].
> Thus, at a minimum, no
> citizen could ever give up a right to self-defense--even if he desired to.
SERVO: See? I *told* you.
> European writers such as Pufendorf and Burlamaqui--
MIKE: Known best for their folk ballads about share crop farming.
> always favorites of
> Jefferson--even argued that self-defense was a moral duty: a failure to
> defend against illegal attack was, like suicide, a moral wrong.
CROW: But what about defense against *legal* attack.
SERVO: That's just as bad, maybe even worse.
CROW: But how can you tell the difference?
MIKE: You ask the government.
CROW: Oh, *that* makes me feel better.
>
> To go from a right to self defense to a right to arms suitable for such
> defense was but a minor step,
SERVO: Especially since the debate was funded by the NRA.
> which came in the wake of the English Civil
> War.
CROW: When was that?
MIKE: Before your time.
> When, after that war, Charles II ascended the throne in 1660, he
CROW: Tripped over his scepter *really* embarrassed himself.
> began to disarm the English people.
MIKE: Making him very unpopular, especially among the trade unions.
> A limited militia, composed only of
> his supporters, was ordered to seize the arms of all "disaffected
> persons."
SERVO: Hah-hah-ha! I'll just take those arms, *thank you*!!
> The 1662 Militia Act formally empowered militia officials to
> seize the arms of anyone they might "judge dangerous to the peace of the
> kingdom."
MIKE: Which, ironically, included themselves, so they went out of business
in just three short days.
> His successor, James II, ordered vigorous enforcement of that
> Act.
CROW: Up at 5 am, meager rations, all in order to vigorously enforce his
*majesty's* act.
> English governmental records of the 1680's are filled with reports of
> arms seizures, and orders for still more searches and raids.
MIKE: It almost completely eclipsed the usual scandals coming from the
royal family.
>
> But James eventually went too far,
SERVO: The populace finally noticed that, without arms, their quality of
life was dramatically diminished.
> and in 1688 he was overthrown and
> driven from the kingdom.
ALL: Bad, *bad* king. Shoo, shoo!!
> Parliament enacted a "Bill of Rights" which all
> future monarchs must swear to uphold. Among the "ancient rights and
> liberties" thus protected was that of having "arms for their defense,
> suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
CROW: Which means that they could *still* make it illegal to have arms,
right?
MIKE: Yes.
CROW: So...Where's the progress?
SERVO: Well, it sounds good on paper.
MIKE: And that's all that really matters.
CROW: Oh.
> (It is noteworthy
> that an early draft had proposed a citizen right to arms for the "common
> defense;" the House of Lords demanded that this be changed to "for their
> defense.")
SERVO: And that subtle change altered the course of history as we know it.
>
> The 1688 declaration became the core of common law rights.
CROW: Tom, I declare you illegal.
SERVO: Hey!
> Blackstone's
> great legal treatise labelled its arms clause as an extension of "the
MIKE: Feed the Hungry Bill.
> natural right of resistance and self-preservation." In the 1760's,
SERVO: People took to numbering the years in reverse.
MIKE: A practice that, fortunately, never really caught on.
> American newspapers invoked Blackstone to establish that "it is a natural
CROW: There were American newspapers in the 1760's?
MIKE: Well, not technically.
> right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill
> of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense." Thus, by 1688, an
CROW: Am I lost here? He just said the 1760's, now we're back in 1688.
SERVO: [signing] Let's do the Time Warp *again*!!
> individual right to arms for self-defense was enshrined in British law.
MIKE: Yep, it's right there next to the Madonna.
> It
> was quite independent of the militia concept--after all, it was the James'
> militia that had been responsible for disarming individuals,
SERVO: It was his personality, really, that was so disarming.
> and "Militia
> Act" which had legalized this!
CROW: Legalized disarmament? What's next? Legalized gambling??
>
> AMERICA, 1776: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN MILITIA AND INDIVIDUAL ARMS RIGHTS
MIKE: Also known by it's less dramatic title of "The American Declaration
of Independence."
>
> The difference between republican (militia-emphasizing) and Enlightenment
> (individual-arms-emphasizing) approaches became most distinct in 1776,
CROW: When the republicans started wearing yellow taffeta evening gowns.
> when many newly-independent states adopted constitutions.
SERVO: Which wasn't easy, considering they only had single income homes.
> The first,
> Virginia, considered several proposals, and two of these proposals
> embodied are direct ancestors of the second amendment.
MIKE: The fabled dancing-shrews of Madagascar.
> Thomas Jefferson
> submitted
CROW: Whip me, beat me, make my write bad posts!
> a thoroughly Enlightenment draft,
SERVO: Less filling.
CROW: Tastes great.
> which would have extended the
> electoral franchise to all taxpayers, regardless of land ownership, and
> failed to mention the importance of the militia.
MIKE: Ooh, did I *fail* to mention militia?
> But Jefferson's draft
CROW: Was considered bitter by many.
SERVO: And, as a result, failed to take any honours at the Great American
Beer Festival that year.
> establishes him as the father of the "right to arms" portion of the second
> amendment; he would have guaranteed that "no freeman shall ever be
> debarred the use of arms."
CROW: See, Tom, change your name to Freeman and your problems will go
away.
SERVO: [sobbing] I...just...why?...Oh, why???
>
> George Mason, on the other hand,
CROW: Preferred a good spanking, now and then.
> submitted a solidly republican approach.
> Mason would have limited the franchise to landowners, and,
MIKE: Owners of Taco Bell's.
> while leaving
> individual arms unmentioned,
CROW: Individual arms *must* remain unmentionable in polite conversation.
> would have recognized that a "well regulated
> militia" was the
SERVO: Only way to get networks to stop putting those damned logos at the
bottom of the screen!
MIKE & CROW: Here, here!!
> "proper, natural and safe defense of a free State." Mason
> thus sired the
CROW: Bastard child of enlightened thought.
> "well-regulated militia" portion of the amendment. The
> Virginia legislature, dominated by major landowners,
CROW: [whip crack] On your knees, slave.
> opted for a version
> of Mason's draft.
MIKE: Although many found Mason's draft to be a trifle fruity.
>
> Only a few months later,
SERVO: We found ourselves *still* reading this post. Time go bail, guys.
MIKE: Okay, let's go.
[ ...6...5...4...3...2...1...<> ]
CROW: Say, Mike, how do you feel about all this 2nd amendment stuff?
SERVO: Yeah, you're an American, aren't you?
MIKE: I sure am, and, to tell you the truth, I think the poster has a lot
of good things to say.
SERVO & CROW: He *does*?!!?
MIKE: Sure. Like the part about draft beer. I definitely prefer draft to
bottles or cans.
CROW: Ah, Mike. [to Tom] I don't think he gets it.
MIKE: And the part about keeping your arms. Hey, I *like* my arms,
couldn't live without them (no offense Tom). And I think *everyone*
should have arms. Except lemurs, maybe, and potatoes.
SERVO: [to Crow] You're right, I think he's *really* lost it this time.
[ Commercial sign light begins to blink ]
SERVO: This calls for drastic measures. We'll be right back.
MIKE: And I just *loved* the 1600's...
< Commercials >
[ Tom is glowering over Mike, who has a look of profound terror on his face.
Crow is on the other side of Mike, chanting. The lights are dim, eerie. ]
SERVO: Snap-out-of-it-man!! Don't you see what's happening to you?
MIKE: But...You don't see?!!? It's right there!
SERVO: Crow, I think it's time for shock treatment.
CROW: Electric shock. Electric shock. Electric shock.
MIKE: [his normal self] Hey, guys, take it easy, I was just funnin'.
[ The lights return to their normal brightness ]
SERVO: What the...?
CROW: Hey! Does this mean I don't get to shock 'em?
MIKE: I'm afraid so, buddy.
CROW: Owh, I never get to have *any* fun.
[ A cacophony of Light and Sound ]
ALL: WE'VE GOT POSTING SIGN!!!
[ <>...1...2...3...4...5...6... ]
SERVO: You really had me going there for a second.
MIKE: Sorry, pal, I thought it fit the mood.
CROW: Oh, it did, only too well.
> Pennsylvania likewise adopted a constitution.
SERVO: Unfortunately, it wasn't a strong constitution, so Pennsylvania
ended up passing away in the middle of the night.
> But, unlike Virginia, its convention was completely dominated by
CROW: A Leather-clad dominatrix named Sara!
> Enlightenment thought. (Pennsylvania's "establishment" had opposed
> independence;
MIKE: Yeah, they thought it might lead to dancing.
> its "radicals," Jeffersonians to a man, hijacked the State
SERVO: And took it straight to Cuba.
> constitutional convention). The Pennsylvania convention had copies of the
CROW: Nude photographs of Virginia, and *boy* were they explicit.
> Virginia declaration of rights and, John Adams tells us, it took its own
MIKE: Pictures of Virginia, but they all came out dark and fuzzy.
> bill of rights "almost verbatim"
SERVO: But not quite, since Kodak has a trademark on Verbatim.
> from these. But there was one very
> conspicuous exception.
CROW: The Toadstools. Whatever happened to the Toadstools?
> Pennsylvania entirely omitted Virginia's section
> praising the militia.
SERVO: Oh, so sorry, did we *unintentionally* omit your section again?
> Instead it substituted a clear individual rights
> guarantee:
MIKE: You *do* have the right to be an individual.
> "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
> themselves and the State."
CROW: Personally, I don't get that show. Is it British humour, or
something?
MIKE: "The State?"
CROW: Yeah.
MIKE: I've never seen it.
> Where the Virginia republicans had stressed the
> militia,
SERVO: By assigning fifty mile forced marches with no rations.
> the Pennsylvania Jeffersonians instead guaranteed individual
> rights to arms.
CROW: With a double-coupon day!
> They also made clear their emphasis on self-defense.
MIKE: They preferred to place the accent on "de."
> Whereas Virginia had begun its Declaration with a statement that
SERVO: Made no sense to anyone, so they eventually gave in and dropped it.
> governments were founded to ensure, among other things, the public
> "safety," Pennsylvania opened with the note
CROW: In retrospect, I'm sure they meant to open with a joke.
SERVO: But that was edited out.
CROW: *Damn* that Perry White!
> that all men "have certain
> natural, inherent and unalienable rights"--the first one listed being that
> of "enjoying
MIKE: Fat free Fig Newtons.
> and defending life and liberty."
CROW: I thought that was Superman's job.
>
> Later states essentially chose between these two models,
SERVO: Since, in those days, contractors didn't have as many house plans
as they do today.
CROW: I wonder what they called Colonial style houses back then.
MIKE: That's a good question, maybe the author will address it later on.
> depending upon
> which group was in control.
CROW: I'm in control.
SERVO: No you're not! *I'm* in control.
MIKE: Cut it out, both of you.
SERVO & CROW: Okay.
MIKE: Besides, *I'M* the one who's in control!
> But Jeffersonian democracy, with its emphasis
> on individual freedom, increasingly won out.
SERVO: But, had it only won "in," we'd have a happier world today.
> In State after
> State--Connecticut, Kentucky, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
CROW: Self-control.
MIKE: Of Confusion.
> to name but
> a few--voting rights were given to all taxpayers, and individual rights to
> arms were guaranteed.
SERVO: All taxpayers, except *women*!!
>
> Thus, prior to the Federal constitutional convention, Americans saw
CROW: Baywatch only on Sunday nights.
> themselves as having two choices for bills of rights; a Classical
> Republican emphasis on the militia's importance to a State, or a
> Jeffersonian emphasis on rights to arms for the individual.
SERVO: And what a sticky wicket *this* presented.
CROW: Let's sit back and see how the nutty professor gets himself out of
*this* wacky adventure.
>
> THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS: BOTH THE MILITIA AND A RIGHT TO ARMS
MIKE: And half the saturated fat!
>
> In 1787,
CROW: The inventor of the Snarf-blatt would *finally* have his day in
court.
> delegates met to draft proposed amendments to the Articles of
> Confederation.
SERVO: Ponytails on men and rings through the abdomen were banned.
> Instead, they resolved to draft an entirely new document, a
MIKE: Song about a girl with kaleidoscope eyes.
> written constitution. This set the stage for verbal battles throughout the
> States,
CROW: Since no one could agree on who had the worst penmanship.
> as conventions met to determine whether their proposal should be
> ratified.
CROW: And whether twenty bucks was too much to pay for a hooker.
MIKE: Okay, Crow, I've been lenient this time, but that's going a little
far.
CROW: Well, he *said* it was a convention.
MIKE: Oh, he did, didn't he... Okay, I'll let it slide.
>
> One major weakness of the constitution was its lack of a bill of rights.
SERVO: That and a poor pitching staff.
> The demands for such a bill came from almost entirely from Jeffersonian
CROW: Eh? What was that was what you said?
> groups; they predictably ignored the militia, and sought guarantees of
SERVO: Fresh biscuits with their jam.
> individual arms. In Pennsyvania's ratifying convention, a crucial report
MIKE: Was leaked to the papers, causing much embarrassment.
> drafted by Jeffersonians called for a bill of rights guaranteeing that "no
> law shall be passed
CROW: Before its time.
> for disarming the people or any of them, unless for
> crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."
SERVO: How do you injure the public?
MIKE: You invite it out, but then don't show up.
CROW: You taunt it and call it nasty names.
SERVO: Oh, that explains it, then.
> Instead of praising the militia, it treated it as a danger to individual
> rights, since it allowed everyone to be subjected to martial law!
SERVO: Which is especially intolerable, coming from a government.
>
> Alerted by the Pennsylvania delegates, other Jeffersonians pressed for
MIKE: Devine intervention.
> individual rights to arms. In Massachusetts, Sam Adams called for a bill
CROW: To let him open a micro-brewery of his very own.
> of rights guarantee that the new government would never "prevent the
> people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping
> their own arms."
MIKE: Let's face it, trading arms is just plain disgusting.
> Crucially, the New Hampshire convention, which gave the
> constitution the crucial ninth ratification,
SERVO: After breaking the seventh seal.
> which made the document
> binding
CROW: Ohh, I *hate* it when a document binds you there.
> on the States which had already ratified, demanded security that
> "Congress shall never disarm any citizen except such as are or have been
> in actual rebellion."
SERVO: Before this, an unruly band of Congress could be seen wandering the
streets *looking* for someone to disarm.
>
> So far, the militia had received little emphasis;
CROW: **MILITIA**!!!
MIKE: Ok, Crow, that's *plenty* of emphasis.
CROW: Thanks.
> by 1787 Jefferson
> carried far more weight
MIKE: Than was healthy.
CROW: Yeah, he'd turned into a real porker!
> with Americans than did Harrington. But then came
> the Virginia convention, the one place where republicans as well as
> Jeffersonians were demanding a bill of rights.
SERVO: And in this corner, for your entertainment...
> In 1776, Virginia had sired
CROW: A lovely pair of twin counties.
> both George Mason's proposal to protect the militia, and Jefferson's
> proposal to protect individual arms.
SERVO: They were pretty much sitting on the fence with this one.
> This time, the Virginians saw no need
CROW: To continue hiding their love.
> to choose between these ideas: both were vital. Patrick Henry lauded the
> militia
SERVO: You *do* like me, you *really* *do*!
> and also argued that "the great object is, let every man be
MIKE: Hey! Jefferson was big, but this "great object" stuff is just plain
mean.
> armed," while his colleague Richard Henry Lee both argued for a militia of
> landowners and claimed that
SERVO: He was the son of a potbellied sow.
> "to preserve freedom, it is essential that the
> whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike,
> especially when young, how to use them."
CROW: Yeah, if you'all wait 'til they're all growed and stuff, it'll be too
late to teach 'em all the *finer* points of pickin' an' a'grinnin'.
>
> By the end of the Virginia convention, even Mason, the archtypical militia
> supporter, accepted that British attempts to undermine the militia had
> been but a first step in a broader, more diabolical plan to strip
SERVO: [voice most evil] Hm-hm-hmm-hm-hmm. I will now reveal my most
diabolical plan.
> Americans of all arms:
>
> "Forty years ago, when the resolution of
MIKE: Computers was based the number of characters you could display on a
line.
> 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 was the best and
> most effectual way to enslave them--
CROW: [old codger] That's what I said, cut their arms off. What're they
gonna do then? Kick ya? Hah-hah-ha.
> but that they should not do it openly;
MIKE: No, they should do it in private, and have their own secret handshake
CROW: And decoder ring!
> but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and
> neglecting the militia"
SERVO: That was so powerful a statement that it doesn't even *need* closing
punctuation.
CROW: I hear you, man.
MIKE: Me too.
>
> The Virginia convention for the first time proposed a bill of rights that
CROW: Could also be used as a sanitary napkin.
MIKE & SERVO: CROW!!
> would both laud the militia and guarantee individual arms:
>
> "the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated
SERVO: Federal Trade Commission can vastly improve your quality of life.
> militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper
> natural and safe defense of a free State...."
MIKE: And that's all they said, to, it ended just like that.
CROW: Wasn't there an "etc" or a "yah-da, yah-da, yah-da" in there
somewhere?
MIKE: That was in the second draft, after the edits.
CROW: Oh.
>
> When, a year later, James Madison moved
SERVO: To the suburbs of Pennsylvania, several families moved away.
> enactment of an American Bill of
> Rights, he took the future second amendment largely from
CROW: Cocktail napkins and matchbook covers.
> the Virginia
> model. We know that the First Congress agreed to keep the two ideas
> separate, since
CROW: They wanted to see if anyone would notice.
> the Journal of the First Senate shows it voted down a
> motion to add
MIKE: Three weeks of paid vacation for congressional pages.
> "for the common defense" to the right of arms guarantee. We
> also know that Americans
SERVO: Are considered to be loud and obnoxious by citizens of many other
countries.
> of the time accepted that Madison's language
CROW: Was slurred by conspicuous alcohol consumption.
> covered the individual rights demanded by other spokesmen. Newspapers in
> Boston and Philadelphia described the future
MIKE: As something that comes after the past.
> second amendment as
> incorporating Sam Adam's demands, including his clearly individual right
CROW: To open his own brewery. Yeah, we know the story.
> to bear arms, while the Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789 explained that by
SERVO: Changing their name to "Nymphs on Parade" they could increase
circulation by eighty percent.
> Madison's draft "the people are confirmed by the next article in the right
MIKE: To use deadly force when someone pokes fun at their elaborate wall
hangings.
SERVO: Uh, Mike, personal vendetta?
MIKE: Oh, never mind, just venting.
> to keep and bear their private arms." (Madison wrote the author with his
CROW: Most *fabulous* recipe for strawberry crepes.
> thanks, and noted that the article had been reprinted in all the
> newspapers in the then-capital.)
SERVO: To be replaced later by the Now-capital.
CROW: Only to be supplanted by the Hip-capital.
>
> EPILOGUE
MIKE: Captain's Log. Stardate...
SERVO & CROW: *NO*!!
>
> The militia ideal faded in the new nation.
CROW: Taking too many flash pictures of it will do that.
> In 1792 Congress enacted the
> first Militia Act,
SERVO: Act One, scene three. Debbie enters the bedroom. All right, people,
places!
> which did require virtually every adult citizen to own
> a firearm and ammunition,
CROW: Take it.
MIKE: I don't want it.
CROW: Take it.
MIKE: I told you, I don't want it.
CROW: Listen, mister, you take this gun and ammunition, or I'm haulin'
your butt to jail. You got me?
> but made no provision for their organization or
> training. (In 1903 this enactment was replaced with a statute,
SERVO: Which was later replaced by a provision. Only to be replaced again
by a cocktail weiner.
> the present
> 10 U.S.C. 311,
MIKE: I preferred U.S.C. 305, myself.
CROW: Yeah, it has a rich, full-bodied taste.
> which did define the militia to include most citizens, but
SERVO: Again, not women.
> failed even to specify their armament). Since the militia portion of the
> second amendment does not command Congress to do anything--
CROW: Which would have gone over like a lead balloon, let's face it.
> it merely says
> that a "well-disciplined militia" is "necessary,"--it became no more than
> an artifact of Classical Republicanism,
MIKE: Indiana Jones and the Artifact of Classical Republicanism.
> and the only part of the Bill of
> Rights that orders the government to take action.
SERVO: An order which they have subsequently ignored.
>
> The second half of the amendment,
CROW: Comes right before the first, which is what makes it unique.
> on the other hand, had been proposed by
> the Jeffersonians, and together with their other concepts
SERVO: Adds up to one deliciously wacky adventure!
> (voting rights
> for all taxpayers, protection of individual rights, greater economic
> freedoms) grew in the age of Jeffersonian democracy.
MIKE: 2 Million, B.C.
> Almost from the
> outset, Americans saw the individual right to arms,
CROW: Standing right there in the middle of the road.
> not the fading militia
> ideal, as the real meat of the second amendment.
SERVO: Ahh, meat, it does a body good.
> St. George Tucker, in his
> famous 1803 edition of Blackstone
CROW: Hey, Mike, have you heard of this?
MIKE: Well, actually, no, I haven't. Why?
CROW: Just wondering.
> simply quoted the right to arms portion
> of the amendment, and added that "The right of self defence is the first
> law of nature."
SERVO: I thought the first law of nature was "stop, drop and roll?"
> William Rawle, a friend of Washington whose 1825
CROW: Reasons to love Spam.
> "View of
> the Constitution" was used in many American law schools, did discuss the
MIKE: Possibility of doing a FOX series.
> militia clause--only to vaguely conclude that States ought to adopt such
> laws "as will tend to make good soldiers." Turning to the amendment's
SERVO: Right profile.
> second portion, he became quite concrete:
CROW: Serves him right for looking a Medusa like that.
> " The corollary from the first
> position is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
> be infringed.
MIKE: Without my previous approval, of course.
> The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
> could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power
> to disarm the people."
SERVO: I bet that last sentence would sound great with a rap beat.
>
> Where, then, did anyone get the idea that the right to arms was linked
> only to militia duty,
CROW: From a cracker jack box?
> and not to the individual right of self defense?
> This mistake is a modern one.
MIKE: In fact, it happened only this morning.
> The earliest court decisions--Kentucky in
> 1822, Indiana in 1833, Georgia in 1837, to name only a few--
SERVO: No, please, name more, name more!
> recognized an
> individual right to arms.
CROW: They recognized it, but still refused to talk to it.
> The Georgia Supreme Court in paricular noted
MIKE: That a lack of arms was baaaad.
> that the second amendment protected "the right of the whole people, old
> and young, men, women and boys,
SERVO: The whole people except girls, I guess.
CROW: Ahh, sissy girls don't need guns.
> and not militia only, to keep and bear
> arms of every description."
CROW: So it's okay for me to bring out that grenade launching AK-47 I've
been hiding under my bed, right?
> Only in 1905 did a Kansas court invent
ALL: SPACKUM!!
> (without any historical examination worth mentioning)
SERVO: Ooh, trust me, if it was worth mentioning, I'd mention it.
> the idea that the
> right to bear arms was meant only to protect the organized state militia.
> Since there is no question
SERVO: There can be no answer. So, good night, folks!
CROW: You wish.
> that the right to arms clause was more
> important to the the Americans
SERVO: [signing] The the young Americans.
CROW: Weren't they a band, back in the '80's?
MIKE: Who? The the?
CROW: Yeah.
MIKE: I think you're right. Wow, what a tie-in.
> who demanded a bill of rights--prior to
> Virginia's convention, few
CROW: Men felt obligated to pay more than ten dollars for a hooker.
MIKE: Crow...
> proposals even gave the militia a mention--
SERVO: And they were thirty second spots, too, so there was no excuse for
not giving them a mention.
> this
> was truly a case of the tail wagging the dog!
CROW: Hey! That sounds like fun!!
> There had been framers who
MIKE: Grew crops, but that's another story.
> stessed the militia--but they were appeased by the first part of the
CROW: Ritual sacrifice.
> second amendment; its right to arms clause was meant to answer entirely
> different critics, seeking an entirely different principle.
SERVO: The Jehovah's Witnesses.
> In any event,
> few antigunners would really want to restore the militia system,
CROW: They really just want to put it against a wall and shoot it.
> which
> made gun ownership mandatory. Their claims actually seek to defeat both
> portions of the second amendment, and to circumvent George Mason's
MIKE: Hair club for men.
> objectives as well as those of Thomas Jefferson.
>
> -END-
ALL: YEAH!!!!
> ADDENDUM:
ALL: NOOOO!!!!!
>
> This article represents an extreme condensation
CROW: I'll say, it's got mildew all over it.
> of the thesis advanced by
> the author in his article "The Second Amendment and the Historiography of
SERVO: Ooh, historiography! That's history in 3D, right?
> the Bill of Rights," JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLITICS, vol. 4, p.1 (1987). Also
> of interest may be the author's
CROW: Unauthorized biography: Men with Guns.
> "Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a
> Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC
> POLICY, vol.9, p.559 (1986).
>
>
>
>
CROW: Wow, it's really over?
MIKE: Looks that way.
SERVO: I'm getting too old for this.
[ ...6...5...4...3...2...1...<> ]
CROW: My question, Mike, is why did the author feel that we needed all that
history stuff to understand twenty-four words?
SERVO: Yeah, Mike, he must have spent *months* compiling all that data, yet
he didn't really change my attitudes about the second amendment at
all.
MIKE: Well, guys, I think the author was practicing something called
"preaching to the converted."
SERVO: Oh, I see. He was merely stating an argument in terms meant to
make people who already agree with him nod and say "Yes, good point."
CROW: While at the same time making people who disagree with him say
"What a nincompoop."
MIKE: Well, that's about right. What'dya think sirs?
[ Deep 13 ]
DR. F: I think it's time we put you all to bed. Push the button, Frank.
FRANK: With pleasure.
[ Frank pulls out an oozie and opens fire on the button. ]
\ | /
\|/
-- * --
/|\
/ | \
Mystery Science Theater 3000 and its related characters and situations are
trademarks of and (c) 1994 by Best Brains, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of copyrighted and trademarked material is for entertainment
purposes only; no infringement on the original copyrights or trademarks
held by Best Brains, Inc. is intended or should be inferred.
Brainclaw
posting to this group, but I find your treatment of the Second
Ammendment appalling. When THEY are done dismanteling the right
that allowed me to save my life from a carjacker, they will come for
the Ammendment that graces the credits of MST3K.
ALL ammendments are sacred, and even though satire is really funny,
SATIRE itself isn't immune from distruction. If things go the way
they seem to be heading, we may not be able to make fun of things
and not go to jail.
I hate all forms of censorship, I hate loss of ANY rights at all.
Even though I disagree with the tone of your Episode, I support
your freedom of speech to say it.
I am one of the 80 million legal gun owners in this cool country
we live in, I am also one of the 2 million people who defended themselves
with firearms this year.
I can read and think and write and don't consider myself a "Hick",
whatever that means. There are many of us around, and we are
all law abiding, educated people.
Look at both sides, Mistie!!
Eagerly awaiting your Misty of our corrupt Government and Media.
B R A I N C L A W
Jamie Plummer
> I find your episode really funny, and love mst3k as much as anybody
> posting to this group, but I find your treatment of the Second
> Ammendment appalling. When THEY are done dismanteling the right
> that allowed me to save my life from a carjacker, they will come for
> the Ammendment that graces the credits of MST3K.
>
I don't read the MSTings, but I wanted you know there are other
MSTies that support the 2nd amendment. I also would encourage
you to proofread your posts, especially an something such as
politics that invites flames.
--
"more cunning than a fox appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University"
n26 e36 m41 br109 lbi30 ACU100 prop187 SW4] Jamie Plummer
I am not a MSTie number, I am a free man! ] jc...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU
Speaker Gingrich: Deal with it, pinko boy.] Push the button... someone :(
Jamie Plummer
>
> Mikey, who really thinks the Butter Battle Book should be required reading
> for everybody
I don't like Giesel's preachy books. (Butter Battle, Lorax)
I like most Suess, though. Anyone else see the Suess exhibit
that went on tour of museums a number of years ago?
Keith Williams
|> Brainclaw writes:
|> > I find your episode really funny, and love mst3k as much as anybody
|> > posting to this group, but I find your treatment of the Second
|> > Ammendment appalling. When THEY are done dismanteling the right
|> > that allowed me to save my life from a carjacker, they will come for
|> > the Ammendment that graces the credits of MST3K.
|> >
|> > B R A I N C L A W
|>
|> I don't read the MSTings, but I wanted you know there are other
|> MSTies that support the 2nd amendment. I also would encourage
|> you to proofread your posts, especially an something such as
|> politics that invites flames.
If anyone got the impression that I am personally against the 2nd Amendment,
just because I made fun of an article about the 2nd Amendment, then such people
should reconsider. I am not only not *against* the 2nd Amendment, I am actually
*for* it. I just thought the article needed a good MiSTing, is all.
They're just jokes, folks.
-K (I sure wish I didn't have to post this. I thought my intent was clear.)
Kursten Schuetz
The real purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is to provide premises
for movies such as Red Dawn!
Kurst
Corn? Now we can make tortillas.
We've been waiting hundreds of years for this!