Why should I let you own a gun?
Mike
me for no reason. I can't take that chance unless you can show me that the
risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable with. That is why
gun owners should support gun registration -- it helps lower the risk to
other citizens and removes any reason for them to object to you owning a
gun.
Kent Finnell
news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
To date, none of them have shot you. It looks like we gun owners have
better things to do than seek out poor, pathetic, paranoid you.
I live in an apartment building where approximately 180 other people live.
I'd be willing to bet that I'm not the only gun owner here. No one has been
shot here in recent history. We've had a fire within the past 10 years, but
no shootings, or stabbings, or garroting. Remarkable given the varying
personalities and temperaments? Not really.
--
Vote Freedom First!
Kent Finnell
From the Music City, USA
Bert Hyman
<mikeh...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to
> shoot me for no reason.
I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to
poison the water supply of my city for no reason.
Therefore, I should at least imprison you, possibly kill you on sight.
Fair deal?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
George H. Foster
news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com:
We don't know you either. You might be Bin Ladin's Newest Alcolite or The
Next Beltway Sniper or the Son of the Son of Sam or Ted Bundy Jr. But the
more people with familarity with firearms (and as a result proficient and
packing), the less of an edge you have on all the rest of society. The
Little Olde Lady in Tennis Shoes might be the one that cancels you out.
Ask the rapist in Pittsburgh who thought he could do as he wanted - the
cops were trying to stake every place they could - until he made a move on
Charmaine Dunmar. Two slugs ended his time on the streets - off to the
joint.
Herb Martin
"Mike" <mikeh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Mostly because you have no choice.
It is our right and there isn't a single thing you can do about it.
It is precisely comparable to "Why should we let you speak freely".
> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to
shoot
> me for no reason. I can't take that chance unless you can show me that
the
You might say something of which we would disapprove -- you might
even use your right to free speech to incite a riot, or to encourage others
to commit crimes.
> risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable with. That is
why
> gun owners should support gun registration -- it helps lower the risk to
> other citizens and removes any reason for them to object to you owning a
> gun.
Gun registration does NOTHING for "gun safety" that is why
people like you should SUPPORT UNIVERSAL firearms safety
training and marksmanship in all public school systems.
Starting small we teach pure avoidance (Eddy Eagle is a model) and
as they get older we teach safe handling and in high school safe shooting.
THAT would reduce accidents and mishandling just as near universal
driver education reducing auto accidents.
--
Herb Martin
You Know Who
>I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to shoot
>me for no reason.
Oh no, I can tell you right now I would have a reason.
Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal
This fool posts this same nonsense every month.
Adios, muchacho ... we don't have to prove jack shit to you.
<PLONK>
Morton Davis
-*MORT*-
Asmodeus
@news20.bellglobal.com:
> I don't know you
It's a free country. You don't "let" me do anything, idiot.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
SaPeIsMa
Cars are registered and yet cars are far more likely to be involved in your
accidental death than guns.
It doesn't much intelligence, even in your case to compare the about 1500
accidental deaths by guns to a LOT, LOT more accidental deaths by cares
Do the same comparisons for doctors 120,000 accidental deaths annually.
Yet you don't require people to register before they consult a doctor..
Now do you ?
ThrowAwa...@isd.net
You may choose to rape me for no reason.
I can't take that chance unless you can show me that the risk of you letting
you keep your gonads and penis is so small enough for me to be comfortable
with.
That is why you should support castration oenile removal -- it helps lower
the risk to female citizens and removes any reason for them to object to you
owning a sex organs.
The Lone Weasel
news:lG1zc.24016$KL2....@fe2.texas.rr.com:
> news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Mostly because you have no choice.
Of course we have choices. The people of any state can
restrict or liberalize gun laws pretty much any way they
choose, especially if they choose to amend the state
constitution.
Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your state,
Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal fact.
> It is our right and there isn't a single thing you can do
> about it.
There's not a thing you can do to prevent the people of your
state from changing gun laws. If you don't believe me, why
don't you take it to court?
Oh yeah, because then you'd have to deal with folks who
generally know the law. You might trick a federal trial judge
into believing gunlobby disinformation, or even a federal
circuit judge; but the law trumps their personal opinions.
And actually the law is wiser than you are regarding personal
gun rights, it rests with the people of your state, not your
representatives in Congress or federal officials, to decide
what your gun rights are. If Congress tried to ban all guns it
wouldn't be the Second Amendment they'd violate, but the
Commerce Clause of Article I, and probably the Ninth & Tenth
Amendments, unenumerated rights and powers reserved to the
states.
If you say the states don't grant your personal gun rights you
remove the Ninth & Tenth Amendment protections.
Not that anybody's worried about that.
> It is precisely comparable to "Why should we let you speak
> freely".
Not really. Free speech is protected under the First
Amendment; personal gun rights are granted by the states and
have never been fundamental rights under the US Constitution.
You can tell because the US Constitution doesn't say anything
about a personal gun right except indirectly, if you invoke the
Ninth & Tenth Amendments, and then you need the people of your
state to make that work.
>> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You
>> may choose to shoot me for no reason. I can't take that
>> chance unless you can show me that the
>
> You might say something of which we would disapprove -- you
> might even use your right to free speech to incite a riot,
> or to encourage others to commit crimes.
Mike has a good point, Blurbert. Nobody owes you any gun
rights. If you violate the trust of the people, they can take
away your gun rights. They can take away everybody's gun
rights.
Except the National Guard, aka the well-regulated militia's
right to keep and bear arms granted by the Second Amendment.
>> risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable
>> with. That is why gun owners should support gun
>> registration -- it helps lower the risk to other citizens
>> and removes any reason for them to object to you owning a
>> gun.
>
> Gun registration does NOTHING for "gun safety" that is why
> people like you should SUPPORT UNIVERSAL firearms safety
> training and marksmanship in all public school systems.
I think gun registration is a good idea. I support it. I also
support universal background checks on every gun sale, licensed
or private. It's not foolproof but it's better than what we've
got now.
> Starting small we teach pure avoidance (Eddy Eagle is a
You have to admit reasonable people don't want you teaching
their children anything about guns; the vast majority of
Americans don't want that.
What you need to do is take personal responsibility for your
gun, and suffer the consequences when you screw up.
The rest of us don't need to accept or even think about your
fascination with guns - unless you boys get out of line, and
then the people can take any legal measure to ensure the public
safety, including banning guns completely. It's not what I'd
want, but if I had a choice between living in an armed camp
battle zone environment, or getting along without guns, I'd
choose the latter, and I think most Americans would.
Nobody owes you any gun rights. Be careful you don't throw
away rights you have for other rights you don't deserve.
____________________
Quae praeter consuetudinem et morem majorum fiunt, neque
placent, necque recta videntur. What is done contrary to the
custom of our ancestors, neither pleases nor appears right.
4 Co. 78.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Christopher Morton
wrote:
It isn't your choice and you have utterly no say.
I'll have a gun no matter what you do.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
You Know Who
>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your state,
>Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal fact.
Wrong. Rights aren't granted by voters.
Doug Haxton
Ok, I'll bite: what grants rights?
Doug
You Know Who
Nothing grants rights. That's part two of the trick question that Lee
never seems to get.
"We hold these truths to be self evident......"
Jim Alder
news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com:
I don't know you either. Why should I care one way or another what you
want? I've given you no authority over me, nor do I plan to. You're just
another timid mouse hoping the government will protect you from the big bad
strangers of the world. I prefer to protect myself from them, should the
need arise. And if I choose to shoot you, believe me there will be a good
reason.
Gun registration is a plot. You're a sucker if you believe otherwise.
And I don't waste bullets on suckers or "useful idiots".
--
Metaphors bewitch you
Jim Alder
news:b3epc099h6hblnf5l...@4ax.com:
Nothing grants rights. They exist. Some laws try to take them away, some
Constitutions promise to protect them. But they exist either way.
--
Metaphors bewitch you
Doug Haxton
Rights aren't inherent in the nature of the universe in the way that
(for instance) Special Relativity is. They're a social construct,
i.e., they're what you can enforce through the courts and
police...those are what your rights *are*.
What they *should* be is what politics, basically, are about.
Doug
Doug Haxton
wrote:
They don't exist in the sense that a rock exists, or that F=MA.
They're simply social constructs.
Doug
The Lone Weasel
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:16:41 GMT, You Know Who
It must be the gunlobby. The Founders certainly didn't grant
personal gun rights under the US Constitution; that would
have been absurd, since the states, counties, towns did that.
The more we know about 18th Century state law, the less
credible the gunlobby's claims about personal gun rights
under the Second Amendment. I'd say that claim has no
credibility.
_______________________
Constructio contra rationem introducta, potius usurpatio
quam consuetudo appellari debet. A custom introduced against
reason ought rather to be called an usurpation than a
custom. Co. Litt. 113.
Christopher Morton
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>"Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in
>news:lG1zc.24016$KL2....@fe2.texas.rr.com:
>> "Mike" <mikeh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>> Mostly because you have no choice.
>
>Of course we have choices. The people of any state can
>restrict or liberalize gun laws pretty much any way they
>choose, especially if they choose to amend the state
>constitution.
You can repeal the 13th Amendment too. Doesn't mean I'll be a slave,
especially as long as I have a gun.
You want my guns, you come get them.
>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your state,
>Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal fact.
It's not a "fact", it's a lie you've been telling for some time.
>> It is our right and there isn't a single thing you can do
>> about it.
>
>There's not a thing you can do to prevent the people of your
>state from changing gun laws. If you don't believe me, why
>don't you take it to court?
There's not a thing you can do to keep me from having guns. If you
don't believe me, why don't you come to get them?
Oh, and lest anyone not know from whence your support for gun control
emanates, the following quote of you shows that it comes from the
historical wellspring of gun control in the US, White supremacism:
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any
word and your cynical manipulation of my expression won't
ever make me a racist or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." -
Lee Harrison
Herb Martin
news:10cpbi6...@corp.supernews.com...
> Cars are registered and yet cars are far more likely to be involved in
your
> accidental death than guns.
>
> It doesn't much intelligence, even in your case to compare the about 1500
> accidental deaths by guns to a LOT, LOT more accidental deaths by cares
[I am agreeing with you here, but before the idiots get confused
again, please allow me to clarify a bit...]
Even though cars are mostly registered, they are involved in more
accidents than firearms.
Even thus, cars are NOT legally required to be registered; one can
own a car and maintain it off public streets without registering it;
one can even "carry" that car around town as long as it isn't operated
on public thoroughfares. No registeration is required (in almost all
states?)
> Do the same comparisons for doctors 120,000 accidental deaths annually.
> Yet you don't require people to register before they consult a doctor..
> Now do you ?
They will probably confuse this with "registering the doctors."
But doctors aren't required to be registered either -- just if they
wish to practic publicly.
Christopher Morton
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Doug Haxton <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:b3epc099h6hblnf5l...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:16:41 GMT, You Know Who
>> <u...@who.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>>In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel
>>>><lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your
>>>>state, Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal fact.
>>>
>>>Wrong. Rights aren't granted by voters.
>>
>> Ok, I'll bite: what grants rights?
>
>It must be the gunlobby. The Founders certainly didn't grant
>personal gun rights under the US Constitution; that would
>have been absurd, since the states, counties, towns did that.
The constitution GRANTS nothing.
Try again Nazi.
Morton Davis
"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:e5kpc05cuh8qsqshu...@4ax.com...
> On 13 Jun 2004 21:43:14 GMT, The Lone Weasel
> <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Doug Haxton <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >news:b3epc099h6hblnf5l...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:16:41 GMT, You Know Who
> >> <u...@who.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel
> >>>><lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your
> >>>>state, Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal fact.
> >>>
> >>>Wrong. Rights aren't granted by voters.
> >>
> >> Ok, I'll bite: what grants rights?
> >
> >It must be the gunlobby. The Founders certainly didn't grant
> >personal gun rights under the US Constitution; that would
> >have been absurd, since the states, counties, towns did that.
>
> The constitution GRANTS nothing.
>
> Try again Nazi.
Hey, Lee, what is it that the president, vice-president, every member of
congress, every member of our armed services pleadges to support and defend
against enemies foreign and domestic?
-*MORT*-
Karl Hungus
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:jn5zc.84742$3x.13529@attbi_s54...
>
> Hey, Lee, what is it that the president, vice-president, every member of
> congress, every member of our armed services pleadges to support and
defend
> against enemies foreign and domestic?
Um, Lee's secret Twinkie stash?
You Know Who
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:32:46 GMT, You Know Who <u...@who.gov> wrote:
>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Doug Haxton <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:16:41 GMT, You Know Who <u...@who.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your state,
>>>>>Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal fact.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. Rights aren't granted by voters.
>>>
>>>Ok, I'll bite: what grants rights?
>>
>>Nothing grants rights. That's part two of the trick question that Lee
>>never seems to get.
>>
>>"We hold these truths to be self evident......"
>
>Rights aren't inherent in the nature of the universe in the way that
>(for instance) Special Relativity is.
Yeah, they are. It's really just that simple.
The Lone Weasel
news:tsopc09sho4nta32g...@4ax.com:
> <anti...@go.com> wrote:
>>"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:e5kpc05cuh8qsqshu...@4ax.com...
>>> On 13 Jun 2004 21:43:14 GMT, The Lone Weasel
>>> <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >Doug Haxton <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> >news:b3epc099h6hblnf5l...@4ax.com:
>>> >> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:16:41 GMT, You Know Who
>>> >> <u...@who.gov> wrote:
>>> >>>>In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel
>>> >>>><lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your
>>> >>>>state, Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal
>>> >>>>fact.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Wrong. Rights aren't granted by voters.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ok, I'll bite: what grants rights?
>>> >
>>> > It must be the gunlobby. The Founders certainly didn't
>>> > grant personal gun rights under the US Constitution;
>>> > that would have been absurd, since the states,
>>> > counties, towns did that.
>>>
>>> The constitution GRANTS nothing.
Yes it does.
>>> Try again Nazi.
[begin proof]
BRAY v. ALEXANDRIA CLINIC, 506 U.S. 263 (1993), 316
Justice Scalia, opinion of the Court
re: 42 USC 1985(3)
III.
"The Court bypasses the statute's history, intent, and plain
language in its misplaced reliance on prior precedent. Of
course, the Court has never before had occasion to construe
the second clause of 1985(3). The first clause, however, has
been narrowly construed in Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651
(1951), Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971), and
Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983). In the first of
these decisions, the Court held that 1985(3) did not apply
to wholly private conspiracies. 12 In Griffin, the Court
rejected that view, but limited the application of the
statute's first clause to conspiracies motivated by
discriminatory intent to deprive plaintiffs of rights
constitutionally protected against private (and not just
governmental) deprivation. Finally, Carpenters reemphasized
that the first clause of 1985(3) offers no relief from the
violation of rights protected against only state
interference. 463 U.S., at 830 -834. To date, the Court has
recognized as rights protected against private encroachment
(and, hence, by 1985(3)) only the constitutional right of
interstate travel and rights granted by the Thirteenth
Amendment."
[end proof]
POINT PROVEN YOU SOCIOFATASS!
Next.
>> Hey, Lee, what is it that the president, vice-president,
>> every member of congress, every member of our armed
>> services pleadges to support and defend against enemies
>> foreign and domestic?
UMA THURMON!
Next.
> And which the Current President and all the holders of that
> office for the last 150 years ignore.
Poor folks.
Dang, I go for a bike ride and you boys go apeshit...
Exposing your own ignorance...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
_________________
Valuable rights and privileges, almost without number, are
granted and secured to citizens by the constitution and laws
of Congress; none of which may be, with impunity, invaded in
violation of the prohibition contained in that section.
Congress intended by that provision to protect citizens in
the enjoyment of all such rights and privileges; but in
affording such protection in the mode there provided
Congress never intended to open the door to the invasion of
the rule requiring certainty in criminal pleading, which for
ages has been regarded as one of the great safeguards of the
citizen against oppressive and groundless prosecutions.
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) (Clifford Dissenting)
Scout
I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to run
over
me for no reason. I can't take that chance unless you can show me that the
risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable with. That is
why
other citizens and removes any reason for them to object to you owning a
Scout
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95079BA51682D...@130.133.1.4...
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in
> news:lG1zc.24016$KL2....@fe2.texas.rr.com:
> > "Mike" <mikeh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > Mostly because you have no choice.
>
> Of course we have choices. The people of any state can
> restrict or liberalize gun laws pretty much any way they
> choose, especially if they choose to amend the state
> constitution.
2nd and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America
pretty much sink that assertion.
Scout
"Doug Haxton" <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tqepc05k5jnr0nd30...@4ax.com...
So when Germany was exterminating Jews, we need have no concerns because
according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
Sorry, but I think that is an empty position to hold. It basically allows
governments to do anything, it allows them to do everything, and they are
justified in their actions by the very fact they are engaged in them no
matter how oppressive or tyrannical. Sorry, but I think it's clear that
there are things that NO government should be able to do, and even if they
engage in them does not make it proper, correct or right.
James Mayer
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>"Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in
>news:lG1zc.24016$KL2....@fe2.texas.rr.com:
>> "Mike" <mikeh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>> Mostly because you have no choice.
>
>Of course we have choices. The people of any state can
>restrict or liberalize gun laws pretty much any way they
>choose, especially if they choose to amend the state
>constitution.
>
>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your state,
>Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal fact.
>
You haven't grasped the idea that rights are not granted yet.
>> It is our right and there isn't a single thing you can do
>> about it.
>
>There's not a thing you can do to prevent the people of your
>state from changing gun laws. If you don't believe me, why
>don't you take it to court?
>
Yes there is. He can vote and lobby against it.
>Oh yeah, because then you'd have to deal with folks who
>generally know the law. You might trick a federal trial judge
>into believing gunlobby disinformation, or even a federal
>circuit judge; but the law trumps their personal opinions.
>
>And actually the law is wiser than you are regarding personal
>gun rights, it rests with the people of your state, not your
>representatives in Congress or federal officials, to decide
>what your gun rights are. If Congress tried to ban all guns it
>wouldn't be the Second Amendment they'd violate, but the
>Commerce Clause of Article I, and probably the Ninth & Tenth
>Amendments, unenumerated rights and powers reserved to the
>states.
>
>If you say the states don't grant your personal gun rights you
>remove the Ninth & Tenth Amendment protections.
>
No, that is one of your fallacies.
>Not that anybody's worried about that.
>
>> It is precisely comparable to "Why should we let you speak
>> freely".
>
>Not really. Free speech is protected under the First
>Amendment; personal gun rights are granted by the states
You still don't grasp that rights are NOT granted.
and
>have never been fundamental rights under the US Constitution.
>
>You can tell because the US Constitution doesn't say anything
>about a personal gun right except indirectly, if you invoke the
>Ninth & Tenth Amendments, and then you need the people of your
>state to make that work.
>
>>> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You
>>> may choose to shoot me for no reason. I can't take that
>>> chance unless you can show me that the
>>
>> You might say something of which we would disapprove -- you
>> might even use your right to free speech to incite a riot,
>> or to encourage others to commit crimes.
>
>Mike has a good point, Blurbert. Nobody owes you any gun
>rights. If you violate the trust of the people, they can take
>away your gun rights. They can take away everybody's gun
>rights.
>
No, they cannot.
>Except the National Guard, aka the well-regulated militia's
>right to keep and bear arms granted by the Second Amendment.
>
You stil don't comprwhend what rights are.
>>> risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable
>>> with. That is why gun owners should support gun
>>> registration -- it helps lower the risk to other citizens
>>> and removes any reason for them to object to you owning a
>>> gun.
>>
>> Gun registration does NOTHING for "gun safety" that is why
>> people like you should SUPPORT UNIVERSAL firearms safety
>> training and marksmanship in all public school systems.
>
>I think gun registration is a good idea. I support it. I also
>support universal background checks on every gun sale, licensed
>or private. It's not foolproof but it's better than what we've
>got now.
>
And after that you'd support confiscation.
>> Starting small we teach pure avoidance (Eddy Eagle is a
>
>You have to admit reasonable people don't want you teaching
>their children anything about guns; the vast majority of
>Americans don't want that.
>
You want them to be ignorant so that you can use scare tactics and
lies on them.
>What you need to do is take personal responsibility for your
>gun, and suffer the consequences when you screw up.
>
>The rest of us don't need to accept or even think about your
>fascination with guns - unless you boys get out of line, and
>then the people can take any legal measure to ensure the public
>safety, including banning guns completely. It's not what I'd
>want, but if I had a choice between living in an armed camp
>battle zone environment, or getting along without guns, I'd
>choose the latter, and I think most Americans would.
>
>Nobody owes you any gun rights. Be careful you don't throw
>away rights you have for other rights you don't deserve.
>
You'd do just that to forward your paranoid agenda.
James Mayer
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:32:46 GMT, You Know Who <u...@who.gov> wrote:
>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Doug Haxton <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:16:41 GMT, You Know Who <u...@who.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your state,
>>>>>Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal fact.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. Rights aren't granted by voters.
>>>
>>>Ok, I'll bite: what grants rights?
>>
>>Nothing grants rights. That's part two of the trick question that Lee
>>never seems to get.
>>
>>"We hold these truths to be self evident......"
>
>Rights aren't inherent in the nature of the universe in the way that
>(for instance) Special Relativity is. They're a social construct,
>i.e., they're what you can enforce through the courts and
>police...those are what your rights *are*.
>
So, there was no right to free speech until a court said there was
even though it was spelled out in the Constitution?
James Mayer
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:50:43 -0000, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
They exist in as much as you were born with 8 fingers and two
thumbs.
Steve Krulick
So Silly Sinking Snout blatantly asserts. Since he has no
understanding of what the 2nd Amen actually means, and what the
14th Amen doesn't incorporate, his claim is worthless.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an
individual federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" a
handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right. She is
wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the
states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.
Ed. 615 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23
L.Ed. 588 (p.124) (1876). Moreover, even as against federal
regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual
right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court
held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a
sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had
not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178,
59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower
federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
preserves a collective, rather than individual, right.
CASES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3756. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 27, 1942.
The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the
right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not
follow from this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under
the Second Amendment which reads "A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon
the people by the federal constitution.
Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon
local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment
being to prevent the federal government and the federal
government only from infringing that right... the limitation
imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was
not absolute and this dictum received the sanction of the court
in the recent case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,
182, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206.
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
"Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms"
applies only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and
not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no
serious claim to any express constitutional right of an
individual to possess a firearm...
"It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees."
UNITED STATES v. TOT.
No. 7961. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Decided Oct. 28, 1942.
It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this
amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and
those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike
those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of
religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as
a protection for the STATES in the maintenance of their militia
organizations against possible encroachments by the federal
power.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed."
What does not restrict (apply to) the states, also does not
restrict localities:
QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
Nos. 82-1045, 82-1076 and 82-1132.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Decided Dec. 6, 1982. As Amended Dec. 10, 1982.
"Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the
right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second
amendment. Because the second amendment is not applicable to
Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals
is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No.
81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
And here's one I don't post often, but in it IS a nice summary
of the SCotUS and Appellate position, and also shoots down the
9th Amen argument:
USA v BAER
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000)
http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/001102.html
Mr. Baer contends that sections 922(g)(1) and 922(k) are
unconstitutional as violative of the Ninth Amendment, which
provides that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people." U.S. Const. amend. IX. The circuits
have uniformly rejected the argument that the Ninth Amendment
encompasses "an unenumerated, fundamental, individual right to
bear firearms." San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98
F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1996); see also United States v.
Wright, 117 F.3d 1265, 1275 (11th Cir. 1997), vacated in part on
other grounds 133 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1041 (5th Cir. 1996). We agree and
reject Mr. Baer's contention that the federal firearms statutes
violate the Ninth Amendment.
Mr. Baer also makes the time-worn argument that his conviction
violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has long held
that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear
a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'"
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (quoting
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)). The Court in
Lewis concluded that federal legislation regulating the receipt
and possession of firearms by felons "do[es] not trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties," including those
guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Id. In light of this
authority, the circuits have consistently upheld the
constitutionality of federal weapons regulations like section
922(g) absent evidence that they in any way affect the
maintenance of a well regulated militia. See, e.g., Love v.
Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Wright,
117 F.3d at 1271-74 (upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which bars
possession of machine gun, against Second Amendment challenge);
United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1018-1020 (same); United
States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding
Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1242, against Second
Amendment challenge); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387
(10th Cir. 1977) (upholding 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), which bars
possession of unregistered machine gun, against Second Amendment
challenge). Mr. Baer's prosecution did not violate the Second
Amendment.
I'll repeat this, and stand on it, but you will, of course,
dismiss it and continue to demand the illogical and fallacious
proving of a negative; but you are welcome to cite a SCotUS
ruling that asserts YOUR fantasy claim to counter this:
The Supreme Court has long held that "the Second Amendment
guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not
have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Lewis v. United
States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (quoting United States v.
Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)). The Court in Lewis concluded
that federal legislation regulating the receipt and possession
of firearms by felons "do[es] not trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties," including those
guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Id. In light of this
authority, the circuits have consistently upheld the
constitutionality of federal weapons regulations like section
922(g) absent evidence that they in any way affect the
maintenance of a well regulated militia.
--
Steven Krulick / s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Woodard R. Springstube
> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may
> choose to shoot me for no reason. I can't take that chance
> unless you can show me that the risk of you doing so small
> enough for me to be comfortable with. That is why gun
> owners should support gun registration -- it helps lower
> the risk to other citizens and removes any reason for them
> to object to you owning a gun.
>
>
I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may
choose to vote for politicians who will oppress me. Why
should you be allowed to vote? Why should you be allowed to
decide whether or not I can own a gun? You may get drunk and
drive while intoxicated. Why should you be allowed to own a
car? You may go crazy and decide to ram a school bus full of
children with your car. Why should you be allowed to own one?
The answer to all of these questions is simple. Until
somebody does somethng wrong you have no basis to deny them a
gun or a car or a vote. After they have committed a crime,
then you can take action, but preemptive action is a sure way
to cause a tremendous amount of injustice and suffering on the
part of innocent people who only want to be left alone to live
their lives in peace.
Furthermore, our laws that require vehicle registration and
driver's licenses have not done a lot to prevent carnage on
the highways. A couple of years ago, roughly three people
died in car wrecks for every murder in Travis County, and the
murders were not committed only with guns, but also with
knives, clubs, and a can of lighter fluid. (Two bums thought
that it would be funny to pour lighter fluid on one of their
acquaintences and set it on fire. He died of third-degree
burns in the burn center in San Antonio.) Finally, go to
www.gunnuttery.com and see how many states have passed shall-
issue concealed-carry legislation without seeing any
significant increase in murder rates.
I feel sorry for you, since you so obviously fear all of your
neighbors and the strangers you meet on the street. Have you
given them reason to hate you?
Woodard R. Springstube
news:40CD03C5...@krulick.com:
Krulik,
What do you want done to the American people that makes you
afraid for us to have guns? Are you just planning some nice
burgleries and rapes, or do you have the intention of becoming a
commisar and want safe working conditions for when you do the
modern equivalent of holding a kulak's baby in the fire to get
the mother to tell you where the seed corn is hidden?
Doug Haxton
>>>>Ok, I'll bite: what grants rights?
>>>
>>>Nothing grants rights. That's part two of the trick question that Lee
>>>never seems to get.
>>>
>>>"We hold these truths to be self evident......"
>>
>>Rights aren't inherent in the nature of the universe in the way that
>>(for instance) Special Relativity is.
>
>Yeah, they are. It's really just that simple.
Well, it's very simple (with the proper equipment) to show that
Special Relativity has an objective reality to it; the universe
*enforces* it.
Please show your evidence that rights are inherent in the structure of
the universe. Such evidence must, of course, be verifiable and
repeatable; simply quoting a 228 year old document (wonderful as it
is) doesn't count.
Doug
Doug Haxton
<4g...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >Nothing grants rights. That's part two of the trick question that Lee
>> >never seems to get.
>> >
>> >"We hold these truths to be self evident......"
>>
>> Rights aren't inherent in the nature of the universe in the way that
>> (for instance) Special Relativity is. They're a social construct,
>> i.e., they're what you can enforce through the courts and
>> police...those are what your rights *are*.
>
>So when Germany was exterminating Jews, we need have no concerns because
>according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
Under German law (at the time), they had no rights, that's correct.
That does *not* mean, however, that we need have no concerns about
them. What was being done to the Jews (and millions of others) was
wrong by our standards, and we enforced those standards at gunpoint.
>
>Sorry, but I think that is an empty position to hold. It basically allows
>governments to do anything,
Short of other governments intervening, they already *can* do
anything. Unless, of course, they're overthown by their own
people...at which point the new government can do anything *it* wants
to...until it's replaced.
> it allows them to do everything, and they are
>justified in their actions by the very fact they are engaged in them no
>matter how oppressive or tyrannical.
As far as they're concerned, they *are* justified. And, of course, we
think we're justified in overthrowing oppressive and tyrannical
governments, because that's what our moral standards say we should do.
Well....that, and the fact that we have more military power than any
other country in the history of the world. We have bigger guns and
more money than anyone else, so we get to invade other countries
without fear of reprisal.
> Sorry, but I think it's clear that
>there are things that NO government should be able to do,
I agree. I just don't pretend that my morals have any objective
reality to them in the sense that the inverse square law does.
> and even if they
>engage in them does not make it proper, correct or right.
The idea that actions can be proper, (morally) correct or "right" is
simply a human conceit.
Doug
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>>Rights aren't inherent in the nature of the universe in the way that
>>(for instance) Special Relativity is. They're a social construct,
>>i.e., they're what you can enforce through the courts and
>>police...those are what your rights *are*.
>>
>
> So, there was no right to free speech until a court said there was
>even though it was spelled out in the Constitution?
As long as there's an enforcement mechanism to prevent free speech
from being suppressed, then such a right exists. In the absence of
such a mechanism, no.
Doug
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>>> Nothing grants rights. They exist. Some laws try to take them away, some
>>>Constitutions promise to protect them. But they exist either way.
>>
>>They don't exist in the sense that a rock exists, or that F=MA.
>>They're simply social constructs.
>>
> They exist in as much as you were born with 8 fingers and two
>thumbs.
Your argument would be stronger if you'd proved evidence rather than
an assertion.
Doug
Steve Krulick
>
> Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com> wrote in
> news:40CD03C5...@krulick.com:
>
> Krulik,
Please spell the name correctly. Then read, comprehend, and
address what *I* actually posted instead of snipping it away,
and ranting against a strawman of YOUR creation! And since
nearly ALL of my previous post was simply the citing of standing
settled case law, your beef is not with me but with the judges
from EVERY Appellate Circuit who have created this judge-made
law.
> What do you want done to the American people that makes you
> afraid for us to have guns?
False conclusion by you from a false premise of YOURS,
strawslinger.
Cite ANY of my words that suggest ANYTHING I "want done to the
American people" or that implies FEAR concerning "guns"? Why
must you hoplophile apologists project your fantasy beliefs on
those you can't respond directly to?
> Are you just planning some nice
> burgleries and rapes,
No, you ad hom spewing, side-stepping, slippery-slope sliding,
strawslinger!
Why can't you simply face the facts as provided in case after
case that the 2nd Amen has NOTHING to do with personal "owning
and carrying of guns" independent of militia service and
preservation?
Unable to address, much less refute, my evidence, you are
compelled to manufacture silly and slanderous nonsense that has
no bearing on the evidence itself.
Would you use such tactics in a court of law to convince a judge
that the reason he is interpreting the constitution consistent
with stare decisis and the language AS USED by the framers
themselves is because he was considering becoming a criminal?
Good luck!
> or do you have the intention of becoming a
> commisar
Not that either, strawslinger. Why not just accept the fact that
the courts have been rather consistent, and YOU are the one
driving the wrong way on a one-way street?!! Why don't you just
point to a ruling (not just gratuitous dicta, as in Emerson)
that refutes these standing (never overturned!) decisions? Oh,
that's right, YOU CAN'T!!!
> and want safe working conditions for when you do the
> modern equivalent of holding a kulak's baby in the fire to get
> the mother to tell you where the seed corn is hidden?
Your overactive and rather sadistic imagination is running away
with itself! Perhaps you are merely projecting your own hidden
cruelty?
Meanwhile, go suck an egg and let us know when you can actually
address the POINTS OF LAW the presented rulings deal with,
rather than your own silly and febrile fantasies.
Jim Alder
No, they really aren't. If they were, there would be a lot more of them.
Every organism has the right to protect its own life.
--
Metaphors bewitch you
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>>> Nothing grants rights. They exist. Some laws try to take them away,
>>> some Constitutions promise to protect them. But they exist either
>>> way.
>>
>> They don't exist in the sense that a rock exists, or that F=MA.
>> They're simply social constructs.
>
> No, they really aren't. If they were, there would be a lot more of them.
>Every organism has the right to protect its own life.
Many have the *ability*...but the "right"?
Does a soybean have the right to protect its life? What about the
AIDS virus?
Doug
Steve Hix
"Mike" <mikeh...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Mike, you don't get to make that choice for anyone else.
Learn to deal with it. Get used to disappointment.
Or, get some medical help: your paranoia is running away with you.
Seriously.
> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to shoot
> me for no reason. I can't take that chance unless you can show me that the
> risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable with. That is why
> gun owners should support gun registration -- it helps lower the risk to
> other citizens
How in the *world* can registration do any such thing?
> and removes any reason for them to object to you owning a gun.
It doesn't do any such thing.
At best, it might act as another means of "revenue enhancement" for
local or state government.
George H. Foster
> Why can't you simply face the facts as provided in case after
> case that the 2nd Amen has NOTHING to do with personal "owning
> and carrying of guns" independent of militia service and
> preservation?
The Founding Fathers assumed a "Bring Your Own Gun" military. Couldn't
afford to supply the weapons, and understood that if the government was the
only source, the government would have absolute control. General Gage had
two basic reasons to send troops to Lexington and Concord - seize John
Hancock and a couple other noisy colonists, and capture the gunpowder
there. Keeping and bearing arms assumes not only the weapons, but the
ammunition.
SaPeIsMa
"Doug Haxton" <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s7aqc0pefh56f2ag2...@4ax.com...
So tell us how does one prove an intangible ?
The law of gravitation exists.
Please PROVE it's existence.
The right to survive is as much an intangible.
And yet it also exists.
Nature proves it every day and at every level.
Other rghts also exist that derive from the right to survive.
Now governements are human constructs.
The governement in this country is based on a few premises:
1) The governement is intended to make our lives better
2) The governement serves us and not vice-versa.
James Mayer
>Scout wrote:
>>
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns95079BA51682D...@130.133.1.4...
>> > "Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in
>> > news:lG1zc.24016$KL2....@fe2.texas.rr.com:
>> > > "Mike" <mikeh...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> > > news:QI0zc.4824$nY.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> >
>> > > Mostly because you have no choice.
>> >
>> > Of course we have choices. The people of any state can
>> > restrict or liberalize gun laws pretty much any way they
>> > choose, especially if they choose to amend the state
>> > constitution.
>>
>> 2nd and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America
>> pretty much sink that assertion.
>
>So Silly Sinking Snout blatantly asserts. Since he has no
>understanding of what the 2nd Amen actually means, and what the
>14th Amen doesn't incorporate, his claim is worthless.
>
Steve Krulick consistantly posts court cases that are based on faulty
assumptions of the courts and reliance on politically biased material.
It
seems that he refuses to cross check the material in those cases with
the
material those courts reference as used in their decisions. He
accuses
me of having "unsubstantiated opinion(s)" but I did a little research
and believe that my findings bear out and substantiate my assertions.
Let him go back to those court cases and validate the opinions
of
the court by checking the validity of the quotes, the accuracy and the
logic that the courts used to make thier decisions. At least I went
back
to the preceding court cases to check the validity of their assertions
and
the accuracy of their quotes. I did a little reaserch on my own.
See U S v. WRIGHT Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9tukvn%24v1h%241%40slb5.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain
See U.S. v. Hale Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ev2vc%24rb7%241%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain
See U.S. v. Warin Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ev32h%24rb7%242%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain
See Hickman v. Block Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ev34d%24rb7%243%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain
See Love v. Pepersack .01 Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ap60d3%248qd%241%40slb4.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain
For further reading, see:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/quinshy.html
Morton Davis
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:49:15 -0400, "Scout"
> <4g...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Nothing grants rights. That's part two of the trick question that Lee
> >> >never seems to get.
> >> >
> >> >"We hold these truths to be self evident......"
> >>
> >> Rights aren't inherent in the nature of the universe in the way that
> >> (for instance) Special Relativity is. They're a social construct,
> >> i.e., they're what you can enforce through the courts and
> >> police...those are what your rights *are*.
> >
> >So when Germany was exterminating Jews, we need have no concerns because
> >according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
>
> Under German law (at the time), they had no rights,
Rights may be denied, however, they do not cease to exist simply because
they are denied. Power of deniers is finite.
-*MORT*-
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>> >So when Germany was exterminating Jews, we need have no concerns because
>> >according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
>>
>> Under German law (at the time), they had no rights,
>
>Rights may be denied, however, they do not cease to exist simply because
>they are denied. Power of deniers is finite.
So what is it, exactly, that enforces rights...other than people?
Doug
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>> > They exist in as much as you were born with 8 fingers and two
>> >thumbs.
>>
>> Your argument would be stronger if you'd proved evidence rather than
>> an assertion.
>>
>> Doug
>
>So tell us how does one prove an intangible ?
>The law of gravitation exists.
> Please PROVE it's existence.
Assuming that you're referring to Newton's Laws of Motion, their
existence is quite easily shown through verifiable and repeatable
experiments.
Next?
>
>The right to survive is as much an intangible.
> And yet it also exists.
Incorrect. Nature enforces the Laws of Motion; there's no way to get
around them, whereas the "right" to survive is broken every minute of
every day.
>Nature proves it every day and at every level.
How, exactly?
> Other rghts also exist that derive from the right to survive.
And your verifiable, repeatable evidence for them is....?
>Now governements are human constructs.
As are "rights".
>The governement in this country is based on a few premises:
> 1) The governement is intended to make our lives better
> 2) The governement serves us and not vice-versa.
The fact that our government is based on certain concepts doesn't mean
that those concepts are hard-wired into the structure of the universe.
Just because of group of men said that certain things were
self-evident doesn't make it so.
Doug
Jim Yanik
> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to
> shoot me for no reason. I can't take that chance unless you can show
> me that the risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable
> with. That is why gun owners should support gun registration -- it
> helps lower the risk to other citizens and removes any reason for them
> to object to you owning a gun.
>
>
Well,one could say the same for knives,baseball bats,autos(run you
down),and many other common objects. One could throw gasoline on you and
torch you.
The primary reason US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms is in
the Declaration of Independence.(pay attention to the part about "alter or
abolish")It's also how the US was created originally,by force of arms owned
by private citizens.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Herb Martin
> Well, it's very simple (with the proper equipment) to show that
> Special Relativity has an objective reality to it; the universe
> *enforces* it.
Actually, scientists don't consider that any theory is "true" or that
is "exists" just that it is a useful model for predicting events.
Special Relativity is known to be "false" in the sense that it is
"special" -- only applicable to "special cases"; General Relativity
is required for the "general case" and it, along with the other
best tested theory ever devised disagree with each other.
What an irony that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,
the two best tested theories ever, are incompatible with each
other. Both right in their own context but not useable (so far)
together.
The truth about RIGHTS is if they do not exist then they are
secured by force of arms.
They are EITHER inherrent or CREATED by armed men
willing to die for them.
So if they aren't inherrent the most important right is to Keep
and Bear Arms -- which is true anyway, but any arguments
against rights being inate, just make the case for RKBA.
QED.
Jim Alder
Yep.
--
Metaphors bewitch you
Herb Martin
> >they are denied. Power of deniers is finite.
>
> So what is it, exactly, that enforces rights...other than people?
>
> Doug
You have just made the case -- precisely -- for the enforcement
of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Rights exist without governments but they are enforced by free
people who are armed.
Christopher Morton
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:tsopc09sho4nta32g...@4ax.com:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:25:04 GMT, "Morton Davis"
>> <anti...@go.com> wrote:
>>>"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:e5kpc05cuh8qsqshu...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 13 Jun 2004 21:43:14 GMT, The Lone Weasel
>>>> <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >Doug Haxton <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> >news:b3epc099h6hblnf5l...@4ax.com:
>>>> >> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:16:41 GMT, You Know Who
>>>> >> <u...@who.gov> wrote:
>>>> >>>>In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel
>>>> >>>><lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >>>>Personal gun rights are granted by the people of your
>>>> >>>>state, Blurb. You'd be wise to recognize that legal
>>>> >>>>fact.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Wrong. Rights aren't granted by voters.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ok, I'll bite: what grants rights?
>>>> >
>>>> > It must be the gunlobby. The Founders certainly didn't
>>>> > grant personal gun rights under the US Constitution;
>>>> > that would have been absurd, since the states,
>>>> > counties, towns did that.
>>>>
>
>>>> The constitution GRANTS nothing.
>
>Yes it does.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth, Nazi.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Morton Davis
-*MORT*-
RD (The Sandman)
Because it is not your choice.
--
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
RD (The Sandman)
> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to shoot
> me for no reason.
That shows me you are a coward who is afraid to come out and face life.
Must be bitch hiding all day in your rat hole you call a home.
> I can't take that chance unless you can show me that the
> risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable with.
Learn to read statistics.
> That is why
> gun owners should support gun registration -- it helps lower the risk to
> other citizens and removes any reason for them to object to you owning a
> gun.
Ohj, bullshit. Criminals (the ones you should be afraid of) aren't
going to register their guns particularly after our illustrious USSC
said that they don't have to.
RD (The Sandman)
Absolutely. They just don't do a very good job of it.
RD (The Sandman)
> "Woodard R. Springstube" wrote:
>
>>Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com> wrote in
>>news:40CD03C5...@krulick.com:
>>
>>Krulik,
>
>
> Please spell the name correctly.
Why? So you and LW can simply make up names or tell people to go suck
eggs? You are a fucking hypocrite, Steve.
SaPeIsMa
The ONLY ones that can enforce (directly or indirectly) their rights are
people ?
Which part of that do you have a problem understanding ?
SaPeIsMa
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:56:41 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> > They exist in as much as you were born with 8 fingers and two
> >> >thumbs.
> >>
> >> Your argument would be stronger if you'd proved evidence rather than
> >> an assertion.
> >>
> >> Doug
> >
> >So tell us how does one prove an intangible ?
> >The law of gravitation exists.
> > Please PROVE it's existence.
>
> Assuming that you're referring to Newton's Laws of Motion, their
> existence is quite easily shown through verifiable and repeatable
> experiments.
>
> Next?
> >
> >The right to survive is as much an intangible.
> > And yet it also exists.
>
> Incorrect. Nature enforces the Laws of Motion; there's no way to get
> around them, whereas the "right" to survive is broken every minute of
> every day.
The fact that it is broken, does not mean it doens't exist for all that.
Next...
> >Nature proves it every day and at every level.
>
> How, exactly?
Just look at every creature that fights for it's survival.
Remember that failling to succeed in that fight does NOT demonstrate the
lack of existence of that right.
> > Other rghts also exist that derive from the right to survive.
>
> And your verifiable, repeatable evidence for them is....?
????
Just open your eyes, bub..
It's happening all around (and inside your as well) every moment that you
are (allegedly) alive.
> >Now governements are human constructs.
>
> As are "rights".
And your verifiable, repeatable evidence for this is....?
> >The governement in this country is based on a few premises:
> > 1) The governement is intended to make our lives better
> > 2) The governement serves us and not vice-versa.
>
> The fact that our government is based on certain concepts doesn't mean
> that those concepts are hard-wired into the structure of the universe.
> Just because of group of men said that certain things were
> self-evident doesn't make it so.
>
Sure they are..
If I were to start strangling you, would you let me ?
Or would you fight as all get-out to survive ?
Guess what, dummy.
You would be fighting for your right to survive.
Just because some fail to prevail does NOT mean they had no such right.
SaPeIsMa
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns950868E2D3BE8...@216.168.3.44...
Exactly.
Just because some fail to prevail in the fight to exercise their right to
survive, does not mean that they didn't have the right.
Otherwise how could the fight to survive ?
Jim Alder
news:10crts7...@corp.supernews.com:
Isn't that what I just said? <G> Albeit more succinctly....
--
Metaphors bewitch you
Jim Yanik
Doesn't it say just that in the Declaration of Independence?
Those guys figured it out 230 years ago,but Doug hasn't yet?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:l8ednWPOSeH...@comcast.com:
> Mike wrote:
>
>> I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. You may choose to
>> shoot me for no reason.
>
> That shows me you are a coward who is afraid to come out and face
> life.
> Must be bitch hiding all day in your rat hole you call a home.
>
>> I can't take that chance unless you can show me that the
>> risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable with.
>
> Learn to read statistics.
>
>> That is why
>> gun owners should support gun registration -- it helps lower the risk
>> to other citizens and removes any reason for them to object to you
>> owning a gun.
>
> Ohj, bullshit. Criminals (the ones you should be afraid of) aren't
> going to register their guns particularly after our illustrious USSC
> said that they don't have to.
>
>
>
Don't forget the government's guns,which over 600(that's just the FEDERAL
gov't,not the 50 individual states!!) of such are missing,and some have
already been used in crimes. Now,what is the gov't going to do when those
already-registered guns are used in crimes? Do they go back to the "owner"
and punish them for losing them?
I haven't heard of that to-date.
I doubt it ever happens,even if someone is killed with a gov't owned gun.
So,what good is registration?
If a legal owner has his gun stolen,it makes no sense to punish them for
what a criminal has done with it.The legal owner is just the first victim
of the criminal.
So,what good is gun registration?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Lynn K. Circle
shoot
the
> risk of you doing so small enough for me to be comfortable with. That is
why
> gun owners should support gun registration -- it helps lower the risk to
> other citizens and removes any reason for them to object to you owning a
> gun.
>
>
someone.
SaPeIsMa
Ye,s but some don't get "succint".
Glenn
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Herb Martin rista --
>
>> They are EITHER inherrent or CREATED by armed men
>> willing to die for them.
>
>That is a false bifurcation. Rights exist because humans
>discovered that cooperation improved society and that
>confrontation harmed it.
True. Look how conclusively Hitler proved that in addressing the
"Jewish Problem".
Herb Martin
news:Xns9508CC5EB62...@204.117.192.21...
The ironic part is the guy made the case FOR the RKBA while
he was trying to argue against it.
Scout
"Doug Haxton" <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gu8qc01likk0ief0t...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:49:15 -0400, "Scout"
> <4g...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Nothing grants rights. That's part two of the trick question that Lee
> >> >never seems to get.
> >> >
> >> >"We hold these truths to be self evident......"
> >>
> >> Rights aren't inherent in the nature of the universe in the way that
> >> (for instance) Special Relativity is. They're a social construct,
> >> i.e., they're what you can enforce through the courts and
> >> police...those are what your rights *are*.
> >
> >So when Germany was exterminating Jews, we need have no concerns because
> >according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
>
> That does *not* mean, however, that we need have no concerns about
> them. What was being done to the Jews (and millions of others) was
> wrong by our standards, and we enforced those standards at gunpoint.
How can it be wrong? You just set the standards that those people had no
rights. So how can anything the German government did to them be wrong?
After all, you're not going to tell us that what the government was doing to
them was wrong because it violated their rights......
Seems to me you just, quickly, painted yourself into a corner. Either they
had no rights, and hence anything the government did to them was proper and
hence not our concern.....or the 'standard' is that they do have rights, and
we can concern ourselves with violations of their rights even by their own
government.
You can't have it both ways.
> >Sorry, but I think that is an empty position to hold. It basically allows
> >governments to do anything,
>
> Short of other governments intervening, they already *can* do
> anything. Unless, of course, they're overthown by their own
> people...at which point the new government can do anything *it* wants
> to...until it's replaced.
Why should other governments interven? Why should any government be
overthrown? Are you going to tell me that government has to give those
people the RIGHT to overthrown them before they can do so? What RIGHT did
that government give to other people to allow them to intervene?
Sorry, but you're now clearly implying that the rights of people aren't
controlled by what a government tells them they can or can not do.
> > it allows them to do everything, and they are
> >justified in their actions by the very fact they are engaged in them no
> >matter how oppressive or tyrannical.
>
> As far as they're concerned, they *are* justified.
Yep, and by your primus, everyone else should also consider them justified.
Yet you tell us that no everyone considers them justified......looks like
rights exist even when the government doesn't recognize them.
> And, of course, we
> think we're justified in overthrowing oppressive and tyrannical
> governments, because that's what our moral standards say we should do.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the federal government has 'granted' that right
to anyone. Care to show me in the Constitution or the US Code of Law where
the government has given the people the right to overthrow it?
How can we possibly overthrow an oppressive and tyrannical government when
such a government hasn't given us a right to do so? Further how is it
possible for any government to be oppressive and tyrannical? I mean it's not
like you can say they are violating your rights? If the government says
you're a slave, then you can't claim that's a violation of your right to be
free. So how exactly do you support your contention that a government can be
oppressive and tyrannical when whatever they do is perfectly fine because it
doesn't violate your rights. Explain this to me because I just can't seem to
understand how that is possible when the government is the one that
determines what is proper and correct for everyone.
> Well....that, and the fact that we have more military power than any
> other country in the history of the world. We have bigger guns and
> more money than anyone else, so we get to invade other countries
> without fear of reprisal.
I think you need to go back and revisit history. Such a condition is HARDLY
unique to the US.
> > Sorry, but I think it's clear that
> >there are things that NO government should be able to do,
>
> I agree. I just don't pretend that my morals have any objective
> reality to them in the sense that the inverse square law does.
So when you claim we don't have rights.....that doesn't have any objective
reality. Ok, got it.
> > and even if they
> >engage in them does not make it proper, correct or right.
> The idea that actions can be proper, (morally) correct or "right" is
> simply a human conceit.
Well, since we are only human............
With the possible exception of yourself.
Scout
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:11:14 GMT, "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com>
> wrote:
>
>
because
> >> >according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
> >>
> >> Under German law (at the time), they had no rights,
> >
> >they are denied. Power of deniers is finite.
>
> So what is it, exactly, that enforces rights...other than people?
How can other people enforce rights....when you claim they have no right
that needs enforcement, nor any right to enforce it?
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>> >> So what is it, exactly, that enforces rights...other than people?
>> >>
>> >> Doug
>> >
>> >
>> > You have just made the case -- precisely -- for the enforcement
>> > of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
>> >
>> > Rights exist without governments but they are enforced by free
>> > people who are armed.
>
>> Doesn't it say just that in the Declaration of Independence?
>>
>> Those guys figured it out 230 years ago,but Doug hasn't yet?
Just because something's in the Declaration, that doesn't make it
objectively *true*.
>
>The ironic part is the guy made the case FOR the RKBA while
>he was trying to argue against it.
Um, I'm *for* the RKBA....what gave you the impression I wasn't?
I simply don't think that such a right exists outside of human
intervention.
Doug
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>> >> >So when Germany was exterminating Jews, we need have no concerns
>because
>> >> >according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
>> >>
>> >> Under German law (at the time), they had no rights,
>> >
>> >Rights may be denied, however, they do not cease to exist simply because
>> >they are denied. Power of deniers is finite.
>>
>> So what is it, exactly, that enforces rights...other than people?
>>
>>
>Whether people enforce them or not does not extinguish rights.
They how do you know that such rights exist?
Doug
Doug Haxton
I said that rights don't exist in the *absence* of an authority
mechanism. I have plenty of rights that need enforcement....free
speech, property rights, the RKBA, etc.
Doug
Doug Haxton
<4g...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >So when Germany was exterminating Jews, we need have no concerns because
>> >according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
>>
>> Under German law (at the time), they had no rights, that's correct.
>> That does *not* mean, however, that we need have no concerns about
>> them. What was being done to the Jews (and millions of others) was
>> wrong by our standards, and we enforced those standards at gunpoint.
>
>How can it be wrong?
Because I (and my country's armed forces) say so and are willing to
enforce that opinion.
>You just set the standards that those people had no
>rights.
Under *German* law (at the time).
> So how can anything the German government did to them be wrong?
By their standards, it's not. By ours, it is.
>After all, you're not going to tell us that what the government was doing to
>them was wrong because it violated their rights......
I'm not going to tell you that it's wrong because it violated their
rights under German law...but I'm going to tell you that it's wrong by
*our* standards, and that we're willing stop them at the point of a
gun.
>
>Seems to me you just, quickly, painted yourself into a corner. Either they
>had no rights, and hence anything the government did to them was proper and
>hence not our concern.....or the 'standard' is that they do have rights, and
>we can concern ourselves with violations of their rights even by their own
>government.
As I've pointed out, it's wrong by our standards, and we have the
biggest guns and the most money...so we get our way.
>
>You can't have it both ways.
I think I just did :-)
>> >Sorry, but I think that is an empty position to hold. It basically allows
>> >governments to do anything,
>>
>> Short of other governments intervening, they already *can* do
>> anything. Unless, of course, they're overthown by their own
>> people...at which point the new government can do anything *it* wants
>> to...until it's replaced.
>
>Why should other governments interven?
Because we choose to do so.
> Why should any government be overthrown?
Again, because we choose to do so.
>Are you going to tell me that government has to give those
>people the RIGHT to overthrown them before they can do so?
Of course not. They either have the ability to do so or they don't.
>What RIGHT did that government give to other people to allow them to intervene?
None whatsoever. Either they can prevent it, or they can't.
>
>Sorry, but you're now clearly implying that the rights of people aren't
>controlled by what a government tells them they can or can not do.
It depends on whether or not they have the power to resist the
government in question.
>
>
>> > it allows them to do everything, and they are
>> >justified in their actions by the very fact they are engaged in them no
>> >matter how oppressive or tyrannical.
>>
>> As far as they're concerned, they *are* justified.
>
>Yep, and by your primus, everyone else should also consider them justified.
People will consider their actions to be justified regardless of what
I think of them.
>
>Yet you tell us that no everyone considers them justified......looks like
>rights exist even when the government doesn't recognize them.
The fact that people consider their acts to be justified doesn't mean
that such acts are *inherently* just. Whether or not an action is
moral or immoral is, ultimately, a matter of opinion.
Is it immoral to have a lion devour a slave in the Colosseum for
public entertainment? Today, the majority of people would say "yes".
2,000 years ago, most people would say "no".
Time (and morals) change.
>
>> And, of course, we
>> think we're justified in overthrowing oppressive and tyrannical
>> governments, because that's what our moral standards say we should do.
>
>Sorry, I wasn't aware that the federal government has 'granted' that right
>to anyone.
Check out recent events in Afghanistan & Iraq...we're overthrowing
governments whenever it's in our interests.
> Care to show me in the Constitution or the US Code of Law where
>the government has given the people the right to overthrow it?
Governments don't "give" that right to their citizens (or subjects, as
the case may be). Once there's a successful revolution, though, it's
a fait accompli.
>
>How can we possibly overthrow an oppressive and tyrannical government when
>such a government hasn't given us a right to do so? Further how is it
>possible for any government to be oppressive and tyrannical? I mean it's not
>like you can say they are violating your rights? If the government says
>you're a slave, then you can't claim that's a violation of your right to be
>free. So how exactly do you support your contention that a government can be
>oppressive and tyrannical when whatever they do is perfectly fine because it
>doesn't violate your rights. Explain this to me because I just can't seem to
>understand how that is possible when the government is the one that
>determines what is proper and correct for everyone.
Ok, let's try this again.
Governments can be oppressive and tyrannical...by *our* standards. A
government that isn't oppressive or tyrannical by our standards can be
so by someone *else's* standards.
I never said that what other governments do is perfectly fine. I'm
willing to support overthrowing them (see Afghanistan & Iraq). I just
don't pretend that my morals are objectively better than anyone
else's. Because they're mine, I prefer them. Hooray for Us, down
with Them.
There isn't any such thing *as* objective morality, of course.
Finally, the goverment determines what rights you have...unless you
and your friends can prevent the government from doing so. Example:
In 1776, we and our friends prevented the Crown from determining our
rights.
>
>> Well....that, and the fact that we have more military power than any
>> other country in the history of the world. We have bigger guns and
>> more money than anyone else, so we get to invade other countries
>> without fear of reprisal.
>
>I think you need to go back and revisit history. Such a condition is HARDLY
>unique to the US.
Do you disagree that we have moremilitary power than any country in
history?
As for being able to invade other contries with impunity, I would
agree that such a condition has existed for other countries in the
past.
>
>> > Sorry, but I think it's clear that
>> >there are things that NO government should be able to do,
>>
>> I agree. I just don't pretend that my morals have any objective
>> reality to them in the sense that the inverse square law does.
>
>So when you claim we don't have rights.....that doesn't have any objective
>reality. Ok, got it.
One who claims something exists has the burden of proof. I simply
don't see evidence of objective rights outside of human intervention.
>
>
>> > and even if they
>> >engage in them does not make it proper, correct or right.
>
>
>> The idea that actions can be proper, (morally) correct or "right" is
>> simply a human conceit.
>
>Well, since we are only human............
Exactly! Our rights are what we make them. It's up to us.
I find that rather noble, actually...
>
>With the possible exception of yourself.
Um, why the sudden shift in tone? I don't recall bringing this down
the level of personal insults.
Why do you feel the need to do so?
Doug
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>"Doug Haxton" <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:hg8qc0livjkrf4jf1...@4ax.com...
>> Well, it's very simple (with the proper equipment) to show that
>> Special Relativity has an objective reality to it; the universe
>> *enforces* it.
>
>Actually, scientists don't consider that any theory is "true" or that
>is "exists" just that it is a useful model for predicting events.
>
>Special Relativity is known to be "false" in the sense that it is
>"special" -- only applicable to "special cases"; General Relativity
>is required for the "general case" and it, along with the other
>best tested theory ever devised disagree with each other.
>
>What an irony that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,
>the two best tested theories ever, are incompatible with each
>other. Both right in their own context but not useable (so far)
>together.
>
>The truth about RIGHTS is if they do not exist then they are
>secured by force of arms.
>
>They are EITHER inherrent or CREATED by armed men
>willing to die for them.
Exactly. Rights are created. They're a concept invented by humans.
>
>So if they aren't inherrent the most important right is to Keep
>and Bear Arms -- which is true anyway, but any arguments
>against rights being inate, just make the case for RKBA.
Actually, I agree. I'm in favor of more (human-created!) gun rights
than about 99% of the population at large.
Doug
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>> >> >So when Germany was exterminating Jews, we need have no concerns
>because
>> >> >according to this policy Jews had no rights to be violated?
>> >>
>> >> Under German law (at the time), they had no rights,
>> >
>> >Rights may be denied, however, they do not cease to exist simply because
>> >they are denied. Power of deniers is finite.
>>
>> So what is it, exactly, that enforces rights...other than people?
>>
>> Doug
>
>
>The ONLY ones that can enforce (directly or indirectly) their rights are
>people ?
> Which part of that do you have a problem understanding ?
Um...none of it. I agree that the only ones that can enforce
(directly or indirectly) their rights are people.
Doug
The Lone Weasel
You know this entire argument about RKBA is not about whether
we approve of it or not, or question its existence, but only
whether the Second Amendment grants a personal right to have
guns. The contemporaneous evidence is overwhelming that it
doesn't do that.
But most state constitutions do grant a personal RKBA; that's
not disputed either.
The only thing we're arguing about is whether the Second
Amendment should be further amended to grant a personal
right, instead of just protecting the well-regulated militia;
and because amending the US Constitution is difficult, the
gunlobby decided to just lie about what the Second Amendment
says and does, make everybody believe the lies as if they had
always been true, and proclaim that because everybody
believes the lie, a personal right to have guns must exist
under the Second Amendment as a matter of custom. And
sometimes custom does trump the actual law, if the law is
obsolete.
What I oppose is this attempt to amend the Second Amendment
by deceit; it's far more dangerous to our actual civil
liberties for powerful lobbies and even government officials
to lie about those liberties than to simply demand new
rights. A lie once accepted makes other lies easier to
accept, for example the lies about torturing Iraqi prisoners,
or "no child left behind", or how Iraq was supposed to have
weapons of mass destruction and that justified going to war.
We can't afford to let lies about our fundamental laws spin
out of control, because it won't be long before we're
governed by the lies instead of laws.
___________________
Consuetudo praescripta et legitima vincit legem. A
prescriptive and legitimate custom overcomes the law. Co.
Litt. 113.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Harvey4066
anti-gun people do about the various States Constitutions that are very
specific about the citizens right to keep and bear arms.
Harvey C. Scobie
Radcliff, KY
Herb Martin
> we approve of it or not, or question its existence, but only
> whether the Second Amendment grants a personal right to have
> guns. The contemporaneous evidence is overwhelming that it
> doesn't do that.
ONLY in the sense that no Constitution "grants" the right but rather
protects it and in that sense the evidence is overwhelming that
the Second Amendment PROTECTS, not "grants", the existing
individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.
> But most state constitutions do grant a personal RKBA; that's
> not disputed either.
In most cases the wording is either identical or nearly identical
to the US Constitution.
Even were all of these removed, the States cannot remove
nor grant rights, they can only choose to protect rights and
it is the job of the US government to offer that protection
when states fail to do so.
This is one of those "states rights" issues that is commonly
misunderstood -- states are NOT empowered to remove
rights, neither is the Federal government, but either can
protect those rights if the other fails to do so.
This is one of the "trinary" protections build into the US
Constitution -- most schools only teach the "three branches
of government" but there are several more -- the Federal
government, the State governments, and the armed People
form a three way partnership to protect the rights of the
American people and ensure the endurance of the
Constitution and the (federal) State which rests upon it.
Such is essential to a free State.
--
Herb Martin
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95096C7EDA8DF...@130.133.1.4...
> Doug Haxton <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:p61uc0h62tc1nptnv...@4ax.com:
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 03:59:08 GMT, "Herb Martin"
> > <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> So what is it, exactly, that enforces rights...other
> >>> >> than people?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Doug
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > You have just made the case -- precisely -- for the
> >>> > enforcement of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
> >>> >
> >>> > Rights exist without governments but they are enforced
> >>> > by free people who are armed.
> >>
> >>> Doesn't it say just that in the Declaration of
> >>> Independence?
> >>>
> >>> Those guys figured it out 230 years ago,but Doug hasn't
> >>> yet?
> >
> > Just because something's in the Declaration, that doesn't
> > make it objectively *true*.
> >>
> >>The ironic part is the guy made the case FOR the RKBA while
> >>he was trying to argue against it.
> >
> > Um, I'm *for* the RKBA....what gave you the impression I
> > wasn't?
> >
> > I simply don't think that such a right exists outside of
> > human intervention.
>
>
The Lone Weasel
Please repost.
Thank you.
The Lone Weasel
>> You know this entire argument about RKBA is not about
>> whether we approve of it or not, or question its
>> existence, but only whether the Second Amendment grants a
>> personal right to have guns. The contemporaneous evidence
>> is overwhelming that it doesn't do that.
>
> ONLY in the sense that no Constitution "grants" the right
> but rather protects it and in that sense the evidence is
> overwhelming that the Second Amendment PROTECTS, not
> "grants", the existing individual right to Keep and Bear
> Arms.
Okay, use the word "protects". There's no evidence of any
personal right to have guns protected, confered, transfered,
handed-off, sent by gods, recognized, secured or any other
synonym of "granted" you choose.
You have nothing. I have lots of evidence that the Second
Amendment is exactly what I say it is.
The gunlobby's list of fake quotes won't help you.
>> But most state constitutions do grant a personal RKBA;
>> that's not disputed either.
>
> In most cases the wording is either identical or nearly
> identical to the US Constitution.
There's no state constitution with language identical to the
Second Amendment that grants a personal right to have guns by
that language.
Name one, post that text identical to the Second Amendment
that grants a personal gun right.
> Even were all of these removed, the States cannot remove
> nor grant rights, they can only choose to protect rights
> and it is the job of the US government to offer that
> protection when states fail to do so.
There's no actual difference between granting rights and
recognizing them or protecting them; no difference between
repealing rights and not recognizing or not protecting them.
Go ahead, Blurbot. Show us the practical difference in these
terms in actual practice. Show us these poor gunloons whose
gun rights have been merely granted, not actually
protected...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
> This is one of those "states rights" issues that is
> commonly misunderstood -- states are NOT empowered to
> remove rights, neither is the Federal government, but
> either can protect those rights if the other fails to do
> so.
You're just saying that you can imagine having all the rights
you want, but if the government doesn't recognize your rights
it's just mental masturbation.
We know.
> This is one of the "trinary" protections build into the US
> Constitution -- most schools only teach the "three branches
> of government" but there are several more -- the Federal
> government, the State governments, and the armed People
> form a three way partnership to protect the rights of the
> American people and ensure the endurance of the
> Constitution and the (federal) State which rests upon it.
>
> Such is essential to a free State.
Where do you get this shit, Blurb? It sure as hell has
nothing to do with our US Constitution or any state
constitution.
Cite your source or shut the fuck up.
__________________
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
RD (The Sandman)
IMHO, nada.
RD (The Sandman)
Correct. Whether it exists or not is rather moot if no one (meaning in
particular, government) recognizes its existence.
Steve Krulick
>
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in
> news:i6Fzc.30625$KL2....@fe2.texas.rr.com:
>
> >> You know this entire argument about RKBA is not about
> >> whether we approve of it or not, or question its
> >> existence, but only whether the Second Amendment grants a
> >> personal right to have guns. The contemporaneous evidence
> >> is overwhelming that it doesn't do that.
> >
> > ONLY in the sense that no Constitution "grants" the right
> > but rather protects it
I thought LH would cite Cockrum here, as it clearly shows that a
right the bear arms in Texas PRECISELY derives from the framers
of that state constitution -- "the sovereign convention of the
people that framed the state government"!:
"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."
*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.*
Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)
This also proves HM is wrong, that the 2nd Amen grants,
protects, secures, etc. NO personal right as do the STATE Consts
such as Texas's. But what do you expect from a maroon who STILL
believes that "the several States" refers to any indistinct
minimum number of states, rather than ALL the states of the
union seen as distinct states WITHIN the federal union!
> > and in that sense the evidence is
> > overwhelming that the Second Amendment PROTECTS, not
> > "grants", the existing individual right to Keep and Bear
> > Arms.
As usual, the illiterate HM just blatantly asserts his fantasy
beliefs, but offers no evidence.
Just claiming there IS an "existing individual right" in the 2nd
Amen, and just claiming "the evidence is overwhelming" without
OFFERING that substantiation, is worthless.
> Okay, use the word "protects". There's no evidence of any
> personal right to have guns protected, confered, transfered,
> handed-off, sent by gods, recognized, secured or any other
> synonym of "granted" you choose.
>
> You have nothing. I have lots of evidence that the Second
> Amendment is exactly what I say it is.
As Cockrum does.
> The gunlobby's list of fake quotes won't help you.
I've shot down most of those, too. But Martoon and his ilk are
oblivious to evidence and the truth of what was said.
> >> But most state constitutions do grant a personal RKBA;
> >> that's not disputed either.
> >
> > In most cases the wording is either identical or nearly
> > identical to the US Constitution.
>
> There's no state constitution with language identical to the
> Second Amendment that grants a personal right to have guns by
> that language.
Indeed, most state Consts are NOTHING like the US Const version,
as the purpose in the US Const was UNIQUE, and was to PROTECT
THE RIGHTS OF STATES to maintain their militias free from
federal infringement, whereas NO state was going to protect
itself from itself!
> Name one, post that text identical to the Second Amendment
> that grants a personal gun right.
The key, which Martoon and claque refuse to accept in spite of
ALL the evidence, is that "THE PEOPLE" is a term of legal art
that primarily refers to the collective body politic in its
collective and political capacity, and NOT to each and EVERY
individual person as individual! NOR does "keep and bear arms"
mean "own and carry guns," another misinterpretation that clouds
their little minds.
THE PEOPLE is a legal term of art that has a specific meaning in
law and language:
PEOPLE
A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in
its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet.
S. C. Rep. 467. - Bouvier Law Dictionary
STATE
This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense,
it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together
in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do
right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means
the whole people united into one body politic; (q.v.) and the
state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.
1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's
Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. Sec. 50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. Sec. 361.
In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the
positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial
powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by
the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has
passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means
the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of
Pennsylvania. - Bouvier Legal Dictionary
FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever
he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the
civil rights enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n.
164. See 6 Watts, 556: - Bouvier Legal Dictionary
That is, A Freeman can enjoy or invoke a right OF "the people
generally"! THE RIGHT is a collective right of "the people
generally" that an individual OF that class, as a Freeman, may
enjoy, if it is applicable and distributive!
BODY POLITIC:
When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.
As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take
collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually
they are citizens, when considered in relation to their
political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of
the state.
CITIZEN:
, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of
the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in
congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to
fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended
sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons
born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of
the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes
men, women, and children.
3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the
descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are
not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption
of the constitution of the United States, each state had the
right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That
constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become
citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed
that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10
Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm
("The Bouvier Law Dictionary remains the basis for the
interpretation of Law since the founding of the American nation.
In questions of law regarding legal definitions from that period
it remains the final arbiter of any disputed interpretation of
that law." http://uslawbooks.com/ajs/bouvier2001.pdf)
Judge Story discusses the relationship between "the people" and
"the state" (equivalent expressions) and quotes Justice Wilson
with respect to the rights of states (a state being a "moral
person"). This carries weight, since the Justice Wilson is James
Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a part of the
first Supreme Court appointed by Washington, a professor of law
at the University of Pennsylvania, and above all, a delegate to
the Constitutional Convention where he served on the "Committee
on Detail," which was charged with putting the Constitution
into its final form. Here's what Story and Wilson said (I thank
Leif Rakur for providing this cite):
"ง 208. In like manner the word "state" is used in various
senses. In its most enlarged sense it means the people composing
a particular nation or community. In this sense the state means
the whole people, united into one body politic; and the state,
and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.2 Mr.
Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, uses the word "state" in
its broadest sense. "In free states," says he, "the people form
an artificial person, or body politic, the highest end [and]
noblest, that can be known. They form that moral person, which
in one of my former lectures,3 I described, as a complete body
of free, natural persons, united together for their common
benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating,
and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests, which it
ought to manage; as enjoying rights, which it ought to maintain;
and as lying under obligations, which it ought to perform. To
this moral person, we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified
appellation of STATE." - Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States," 1833.
Here's how one dictionary defines PEOPLE:
> 1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a
> common interest
> 2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS -- often used in compounds instead of
> persons
> 3 plural : the members of a family or kinship
> 4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special
> class -- often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other
> people
> 5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common
> culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common
> language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a
> politically organized group
> 6 : lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
> 7 : the body of enfranchised citizens of a state
For legal/political/constitutional purposes, #7 is the SINGULAR
and relevant term; the others can go take a hike!
The LEGAL concept of THE PEOPLE is not numerical or even
geographical, but conceptual and political, and THAT definition
is: "the body of enfranchised citizens of the state." IT is a
SINGULAR, collective entity.
Citizens, or "individuals," included women, children and other
non-enfranchised persons; THE PEOPLE was ALWAYS the enfranchised
body-politic in its corporate, collective sense!
(BTW, it seems, according to the Bouvier Law Dictionary,
"citizen" only originally and primarily referred to the
enfranchised white male of age, which is ONLY the same class
that is called... THE PEOPLE, and from which the militia is
drawn as "the BODY of the PEOPLE"! Only in a wider and secondary
use did "citizen" include the non-enfranchised WHITES; blacks
before the War of the Rebellion did NOT have the title
"citizen"!)
What part of "THE PEOPLE" do you fail to understand?:
WHENEVER the term-of-art "THE PEOPLE" appears in the
Constitution or BoR, or even other official documents of the
era, it means one thing only, in every case: THE PEOPLE is a
singular entity, the collective enfranchised body politic,
specifically, the CLASS of Freeman taken collectively in its
political capacity.
The only PERSONS with "political capacity" were FREEMEN, that
is, free, white males of legal age. Often this was called
FREEHOLDER and then also meant property-owning free, white males
of legal age. The term ELECTOR was often used in local or state
documents, and this may have restricted political capacity even
further, by, say, requiring residence in a location for a
certain period of time.
In 1789, women, black slaves, kids, non-citizens (such as
foreigners, Indians, prisoners, rebels/Tories, etc.) had NO
political capacity. They could not vote, and were not required
to serve on juries or in the militia. In that sense, they were
NOT a constituent part of THE PEOPLE! Thus, they had, or may
have had, the rights of all INDIVIDUALS, such as freedom of
religion or habeus corpus, but NOT the rights of FREEMEN or of
the collective FREEMAN class. OR, and this is where the BoR
comes in, any rights they MAY have claimed were not PROTECTED or
GUARANTEED by the Const!
THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every PERSON "considered as
individuals"! It is the collective enfranchised body politic as
its own corporate identity.
Yes, individuals comprise the CLASS of FREEMEN who make up THE
PEOPLE. But *A* single individual doesn't necessarily have the
rights and powers that only the collective class or subset
thereof may enjoy. Yes, individuals make up a jury, but no ONE
individual person can declare HIMSELF a legal jury of one, or
put himself ON a jury, or find someone guilty independent of
the other jurors, can he? Only the jury as a whole can do what
the jury is empowered to do. There ARE NO one-man militias, and
only THE PEOPLE collectively can organize, arm, and maintain a
militia. Congress can declare war, but NOT one Congressman on
his own. The individual that the collective is composed of may
share in the power and rights of the whole, but doesn't have ALL
the same characteristics or prerogatives of the whole. Or, even
as to collective entities, the United States may declare war,
but NOT an individual state.
A building may be made of bricks, but a brick is NOT the
building! The part is NOT the same as the whole, nor does it
have the same properties or abilities. One can meet IN a
building, but that doesn't mean one can meet in a brick, or even
a pile of bricks equal in number to the number of bricks making
up a building! If one removes one brick from the building, the
building still remains; if one removes and replaces 50 bricks,
the building remains, independent of the particular bricks
changed.
A corporation may be made up of individuals, but it has an
existence that is not dependent on the life or death, or coming
and going of any particular individual.
So, what THE PEOPLE may do as an enfranchised body politic is
NOT necessarily something any individual may do on his own.
However, an individual may share in the process, and may, as a
member of a designated class or subclass, enjoy the rights OF
that class. IF you are a homeowner, the 3rd Amen rights may be
invoked IF you feel your rights as such have been violated. Not
because YOU yourself are listed in the Const, but because YOU
fit the class protected by the collective term "homeowner."
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
PREAMBLE.
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of
government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to
protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with
the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural
rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great
objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the
government, and to take measures necessary for their safety,
prosperity and happiness.
The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of
individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people
covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole
people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the
common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing
a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode
of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and
a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times,
find his security in them.
This confirms that it was the ENFRANCHISED BODY POLITIC (see
Mass Const) that established the Const, not each and every
individual AS an individual.
When it says THE PEOPLE, it MEANS THE PEOPLE, the enfranchised
body politic, taken collectively, just as Heyman says Adams
meant in the Mass Const:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm
How was the right to arms understood in post-Revolutionary
America? We can attain great insight on this point by exploring
the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.[145] This document,
which was drafted by John Adams, contains the most carefully
written of all the state declarations of rights and constitutes
one of the best statements "of the fundamental rights of
Americans at the end of the Revolutionary period." [146] [Page
261]
In its preamble, the Massachusetts Constitution sets forth the
relationship between society and its members. The "people" or
"the body-politic" are "formed by a voluntary association of
individuals," who come together through "a social compact." What
is most remarkable is that, having distinguished between the
"people" and "the individuals who compose it," the document then
uses these terms in a consistent way throughout. This makes it
possible to discern with great clarity how the various rights
were understood, and whether they were viewed in individual or
collective terms...
In this way, the Massachusetts declaration draws a clear and
uniform distinction between the rights that belong to
individuals and those that belong to the people as a whole. This
distinction is followed so carefully that it is observed even
when both sorts of rights are implicated. Thus, Article XXIX
declares that the independence of the judiciary is essential
"for the security of the rights of the people, and of every
citizen."
Article XVII of the Massachusetts declaration reads as follows:
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common
defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of
the legislature; and the military shall always be held in an
exact subordination to the civil authority and shall be governed
by it.
In view of the declaration's careful usage, there can be no
question that the "right to keep and bear arms" that it
recognizes is one that belongs not to private individuals but to
the people in their collective capacity. This is made even more
clear by the fact that the right is to bear arms "for the common
defence," as well as by the overall concern of the provision: to
control the military force of the community and guard against
the danger of military tyranny. [148]
I have chosen to focus on the Massachusetts Constitution because
of the precision of its language, which strongly illuminates the
nature of the rights that it contains. Yet the same distinction
[Page 263] between "individuals" (or cognate terms) and "the
people" is also generally, although not invariably, observed in
the other post-Revolutionary state declarations of rights. When
these documents recognize a right to bear arms, they always
describe it as a right of "the people," rather than of every
"individual" or "man." [149] This is strong evidence that the
right was understood in collective terms."
Some rights are of individuals, and some are of the THE WHOLE
PEOPLE, just as Gallatin said:
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large or considered as individuals... It
establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7,
1789
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large OR considered as individuals...
And the 2nd Amen is a perfect example of a right of the people
at large!
"The people," as the "people at large," the "whole body of the
people," the collective "body politic," have the populus armatus
jus militiae right to be involved in the state's (or nation's)
military function, by establishing, arming, controlling,
maintaining the upkeep and readiness of the militia ("keep arms"
as Adams meant it), and serving ("bear arms" as Madison meant
it, 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.
"It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
But the "right" to "own and carry guns" was never one of them.
(See Pennsylvania Test Acts)
THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every PERSON "considered as
individuals"! It is the collective enfranchised body politic as
its own corporate identity.
Some rights are individual and apply to ALL individuals or to
particular classes of individuals when applicable. Other rights
are OF the collective entity itself, INDIVISIBLE, and not based
on numbers:
Rights are collective AND individual; collective in their
formulation, individual OR collective in their exercise and
application. It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!
But unless your name is engraved in the Const, you have the
rights that accrue to you as a member of the class that IS
engraved therein. Does the 6th Amen say "Joe Doe shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial &c"? Of course not! But if
you are arrested, as one who qualifies as a member of the class
of persons called "accused," you have the rights. Can you
appreciate the subtle difference? Your 3rd Amen rights likewise
depend on your being a homeowner. Not ALL homeowners, not a
collective group of homeowners, but ONE OF A CLASS defined as
"persons who own a home." GET IT?
The 3rd Amen talks about the consent of "the owner" (singular),
not "the people" (plural). The 5th Amen says "no person"
(singular), not "no people" (plural). The 1st Amen talks of the
right of "the people" to assemble (obviously plural; how can a
single individual "assemble"?). The 6th Amen refers to "the
accused," "him," and "his" (singular). The 8th Amen avoids the
problem altogether. If they wanted to, the authors COULD have
written "the right of persons to..." to clearly refer to
individuals, or else written "the right to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed" to be as vague as the 8th. Well, they
didn't write "persons" when they could have, so there's no
reason to see an individual right. As the courts have affirmed.
In 1792, when the Militia Act was passed, WHO had the specific
right to "bear arms" ("to render military service in person" as
Madison defined it)? Did blacks have the right? Women?
15-year-olds? Non-property owners? Cripples? Feeble-minded?
Prisoners? "Injuns"? "Furreners"? Indeed, the MAJORITY of people
in the country did NOT have the right to "bear arms" in the
militia, hence they had no militia "right" to "bear arms."
Indeed, laws were passed PREVENTING some, such as blacks, from
even possessing guns, "carrying guns" being a separate action
from "bearing arms."
BUT the PEOPLE AT LARGE, the enfranchised body politic (who
WERE, for the most part, the SAME free, white, property-owning
males who could vote, serve on juries AND made up the militia)
ALWAYS had the collective right to "keep and bear arms," a term
of art first used in the 1780 Mass Const by John Adams, that
referred to the democratic organization, control, arming, and
preservation of the well-regulated state militias by the PEOPLE
AT LARGE, the WHOLE PEOPLE as the populus armatus, exercising
their jus militiae right to participate in the state's and
nation's military function, and, if qualified, to serve in
person as a citizen-soldier, as conscript duty if required, to
forestall the need to rely on a standing army, the "bane of
liberty"! The PEOPLE "keep" (keep permanently ready and maintain
in public stores, as Adams and the Articles of Confederation
meant it) and "bear" ("bear arms" meant to Madison in the 2nd
Amen draft "to render military service") in their collective
capacity. For example, a 70-year-old crippled white male could
VOTE for state reps who organized and controlled the militia;
though unable to "bear arms" in the militia personally, he COULD
participate IN the collective function, exercising HIS PART of
that collective right! A 30-year-old white women in 1792 could
do NEITHER!
The 1st Amen freedom of religion applies to EVERYONE, the 3rd
Amen to homeowners (it isn't relevant to anyone else), the 6th
Amen to those accused of a crime... NOT the same classes of
persons, with decreasing levels of inclusion. The "People" of
the 2nd Amen are ONLY those who qualified to vote or (for the
most part) serve in the militia, which WAS NOT everyone by a
long shot. Did blacks, women, 15-year-olds, non-property owners,
have 1st Amen rights? Did those same persons have the right to
serve in the militia, and thereby "bear arms," or vote
democratically (the Const also says "the People" vote for
Congress every two years; did everyone vote? NO? That's why the
People is ONLY the enfranchised body politic!) to participate in
the organization and control of the militia ("keep and bear
arms")?
Were THOSE PERSONS not individuals? Weren't many even citizens?
But they WERE NOT a part of THE PEOPLE!
Laws are written in the collective and general class sense, but
applied in specific individual and class instances IF you are in
the applicable class. IF you are in the class known as
"homeowner" you have individual 3rd Amen rights; IF you are in
the class known as "accused" you have individual 6th Amen
rights.
IF you are a member of the CLASS known as the PEOPLE, i.e., the
enfranchised body politic, YOUR 4th Amen right to be secure in
YOUR person and property is protected. THAT'S why it says THE
PEOPLE.
Which is composed of Freemen, as they belong to the class known
as the People; as Madison's ORIGINAL phrasing of this Amen
indicated "The rights of the people to be secured in THEIR
[emph. added] persons, THEIR homes, THEIR papers, and THEIR
other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures..."
protects the CLASS, so when a member of that class is abused of
these rights, as formulated FOR the CLASS, he, as a member OF
the CLASS, can invoke the rights under the Const for INDIVIDUAL
APPLICATION.
Is that so hard to understand? Hell, even Rehnquist, in
Verdugo, suggested that foreigners, as NON-members of the CLASS
known as The People, did NOT have 4th Amen rights that belonged
TO the CLASS known as The People!
The rights are different rights in each Amen. The People is the
same The People. But some of the RIGHTS apply ONLY to the People
in their collective capacity as the enfranchised body politic
(the whole People), others to certain members of that class
taken collectively (e.g. the militia drawn from "the body of the
People), others to a specific sub-class of The People (The
People of the State), others to the Freemen who comprise The
People, taken collectively or as an individual Freeman. I drew
the distinctions for the different "the People" amendments in
the previous posts.
Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means.
by Akhil Reed Amar
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm
"The amendment speaks of a right of "the people" collectively
rather than a right of "persons" individually.
And it uses a distinctly military phrase: "bear arms." A deer
hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly
speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more
obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained
additional language that "no one religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in
person." Even in the final version, note how the military phrase
"bear arms" is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the
"militia" and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the
quartering of "soldiers" in times of "war" and "peace."
Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used
the phrase "bear arms" in military contexts and no other.
... anachronistically, libertarians read "the people" to mean
atomized private persons, each hunting in his own private Idaho,
rather than the citizenry acting collectively.
But, when the Constitution speaks of "the people" rather than
"persons," the collective connotation is primary.
"We the People" in the preamble do ordain and establish the
Constitution as public citizens meeting together in conventions
and acting in concert, not as private individuals pursuing our
respective hobbies. The only other reference to "the people" in
the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787 appears a sentence away
from the preamble, and here, too, the meaning is public and
political, not private and individualistic. Every two years,
"the people" -- that is, the voters -- elect the House.
To see the key distinction another way, recall that women in
1787 had the rights of "persons" (such as freedom to worship and
protections of privacy in their homes) but did not directly
participate in the acts of "the people" -- they did not vote in
constitutional conventions or for Congress, nor were they part
of the militia/people at the heart of the Second Amendment.
The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian
reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause,
which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of "the
people" -- in essence, voters -- to "assemble" in constitutional
conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core
rights retained and reserved to "the people" in the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to
govern themselves democratically.
"The Fourth Amendment is trickier: "The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Here, the collective "people" wording is paired with more
individualistic language of "persons." And these words obviously
focus on the private domain, protecting individuals in their
private homes more than in the public square. Why, then, did the
Fourth use the words "the people" at all? Probably to highlight
the role that jurors -- acting collectively and representing the
electorate -- would play in deciding which searches were
reasonable and how much to punish government officials who
searched or seized improperly. An early draft of James Madison's
amendment protecting jury rights helps make this linkage obvious
and also resonates with the language of the Second Amendment:
"[T]he trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the
rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate." Note the
obvious echoes here -- "security" (Second Amendment), "secure"
(Fourth Amendment), and "securities" (draft amendment); "shall
not be infringed," "shall not be violated," and "ought to remain
inviolate"; and, of course, "the right of the people" in all
three places.
If we want an image of the people's militia at the Founding, we
should think first of the militia's cousin, the jury. Like the
militia, the jury was a local body countering imperial
power -- summoned by the government but standing outside it,
representing the people, collectively. Like jury service,
militia participation was both a right and a duty of qualified
voters who were regularly summoned to discharge their public
obligations. Like the jury, the militia was composed of amateurs
arrayed against, and designed to check, permanent and
professional government officials (judges and prosecutors, in
the case of the jury; a standing army in the case of the
militia). Like the jury, the militia embodied collective
political action rather than private pursuits.
Founding history confirms this. The Framers envisioned Minutemen
bearing guns, not Daniel Boone gunning bears. When we turn to
state constitutions, we consistently find arms-bearing and
militia clauses intertwined with rules governing standing
armies, troop-quartering, martial law, and civilian supremacy.
Libertarians cannot explain this clear pattern that has
everything to do with the military and nothing to do with
hunting."
Amar's overall 4th Amen explanation makes tentative sense, but
I'm not totally convinced by it, as I've said, and my latest
hypothesis would suggest a more limited right than is normally
thought, but, hey, that is the same situation with the 1st and
2nd Amens too, isn't it?
Here's something based on what I posted in 2001, before I read
Amar's piece:
"It would be awkward to have said 'right of persons to be secure
in their persons, etc.'
Look at Madison's ORIGINAL phrasing of this:
"The rights of the people to be secured in THEIR [emph. added]
persons, THEIR homes, THEIR papers, and THEIR other property
from all unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Why in the plural, even collective, sense at all?
This could have been rewritten to emphasize the individual
nature of the right, for example, the NY proposal (and likewise
the VA proposal) said:
"That every Freeman has a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or
his property..."
but it was merely shortened and tightened by Congress. There was
almost no House debate over this amendment other than a few
minor insertions, as it was late August and they were trying to
wrap up. Perhaps they were not as fastidious as Adams was in
the Mass Const for maintaining consistency of usage.
No question, this, at first, seems to us to be an INDIVIDUAL
right, but the phrasing should have been more consistent to
reflect that if it were.
Of all the amendments, THIS one varies MOST from the
recommendations of the state proposals in this regard, and
strays most from otherwise consistent usage of plural "the
people" and individual "person" or cognates (including the 1st
AND 2nd Amens, to be addressed separately).
Unless there is collective sense I'm missing."
Since then, I've read Amar's piece, and I find it less than
wholly satisfying re the 4th, but I see his point; in any case,
there is more reason to accept ONE amen, the 4th, as being able
to be seen as involving the collective people, in some
philosophical and abstract way that isn't readily apparent, and
as *I* have now further suggested, than to see at least THREE
amens, plus OTHER uses in the Const, as involving individuals
when it is so clear that the collective sense IS meant, based on
ALL the other clues and contexts.
Even the 1st Amen reference to THE People, which some harp on,
WAS originally written to refer ONLY to THE People in their
collective role! In one of the longest and most divided ongoing
House debates in 1789, the original phrase in what was to become
the 1st Amen was the flashpoint for what divided those who
sought more democratic input from those who wanted the
representatives to be more independent. The original words read:
"The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling
and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the
legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their
grievances." (Madison, June 1789)
Rep. Tucker wanted to add after "consulting for their common
good," "to instruct their representative." THIS was the nature
of the PEOPLE assembling that the Congress had in mind.
When the Mass Const is referenced against this, which Madison
surely had access to, there is less doubt that the intention was
for collective consistency; however, unlike in Mass, the US
Const was picked apart and reassembled by many authors, and the
end result may have lacked the unifying hand of one single
author or editor, as Mass did with Adams.
So, the enfranchised persons who made up THE PEOPLE, and who
COULD serve in juries/militias/legislatures/conventions, rather
than EACH "person" per se (which included women, children, and
other "second class citizens") were those Madison was primarily
concerned with protecting, since THEY were the only persons
whose right and expectation to be free from govt snooping
affected their ability to act freely and independently in the
public arena (juries/legislatures/conventions) free from fear or
intimidation. And this even comports with the NY and VA
proposals that said:
"That every FREEMAN has a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or
his property..."
Why did this say FREEMAN (sometimes FREEHOLDER) rather than just
person/citizen/individual? FREEMAN is the ONLY singular term
that leaves out ALL the citizens/persons/individuals who are NOT
those included in the enfranchised (AND propertied!) class known
as THE PEOPLE, and so referred to in every other instance!
Perhaps Madison and the Congress WERE JUST AS consistent as
Adams was in the MA Const of 1780 in using that term, even if we
didn't notice it at first!
IF this is so, than Amar, himself, is wrong to focus on the
right of privacy as being for ANY person who was not otherwise
part of the ENFRANCHISED PEOPLE! (This NOW includes blacks and
women, of course, but not, for example, kids, which would allow
school locker searches as clearly NOT being a 4th Amen
violation.)
Doesn't it make more sense that the same guys who OK'd slavery
and that women couldn't vote were not so concerned about those
same "second-class citizens" not having various "security"
rights as well? What rights and powers did blacks, kids, and
women have that were to be "retained" by them in Amens 9 and 10?
Which of these persons were going to "consult" or "petition the
legislature" when they couldn't vote or serve? Which of these
persons were going to serve on juries or in the militia, or vote
on the maintenance of the militia, and who needed to be "secure
in their persons... papers... property" to prevent intimidation
when serving in office, on juries, or as voters? Which of these
persons voted each two years on the House races? NONE, and so,
THEY weren't PART OF THE PEOPLE the Const speaks of in EACH
case!
"Individuals" included women, children, and other
non-enfranchised persons; THE PEOPLE was ALWAYS the enfranchised
body-politic in its corporate, collective sense! The PEOPLE is
not numerical, it is conceptual; IT is a singular entity, like a
corporation, which also is made up of individuals, yet it has
perpetual existence and powers independent and beyond the
individuals comprising it. As a single stockholder in AOL, could
*I* buy up the whole Time-Warner Company? NO, only the corporate
entity can do that, whether *I* agree or not.
Checks to the Boys Scouts of America can be tax-deductible, but
NOT checks made out to an individual boy scout; Congress can
declare war, but not an individual congresscritter; a jury has
the right to send someone to prison, but not an individual jury
member; THE PEOPLE can democratically decide how to organize and
control the militia's upkeep and readiness ("keep arms" as Adams
meant it), and who gets to serve in it ("bear arms" as Madison
meant it), but there are NO one-man militias and each or any
single militiaman doesn't get to unilaterally set policy or
order himself into battle.
THE PEOPLE have the right to alter or abolish their govt... but
ONLY when they are acting as THE WHOLE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE AT
LARGE, THE BODY POLITIC; individuals don't have that right, and
are correctly treated as rebels and insurrectionists when they
do.
Mr. Madison: "The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts
(Gerry), asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at
large; does he infer that the people can, in detached bodies,
contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of
the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the
constitution if they please, but while the constitution exists,
they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not
believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice
of the people, so far from it, their ideas may contradict the
sense of the whole people..."
Notice that Madison is using PEOPLE to refer to several levels
of collective "wholeness," from the "whole people," also the
"people at large," to "people... in detached bodies," to the
"inhabitants of any district." And note too, that "the
inhabitants of any district" which is a certain number of
individuals fewer than "the whole people" are not considered to
be able to "speak the voice of the people," and that even a
goodly number of individuals DO NOT equal or make up "the whole
people." Clearly, "the whole people," "the people at large,"
"the voice of the people," is NOT the same thing as EVEN plural
individuals, much less ANY particular individual!
Does "people" always mean the same thing, as some contend?
HERE, in ONE paragraph, ONE MAN, the MAN WHO WROTE THE BOR, uses
people in multiple senses: "people... in detached bodies" is
NOT "THE whole people." Can "people" (persons) as a bunch of
individuals "change the constitution"? NO, only "The whole
people" in their collective political capacity can do that.
There are things that ONLY THE PEOPLE as a whole can do, such as
"bear arms" against another nation, that each and every
individual can't do on his own.
That is why THE PEOPLE, collectively, can, and have the "right"
to, "keep and bear arms" since there ARE no one-man militias or
one-man declarations of war!
The 2nd Amen, indeed, the whole Const, isn't a grammatical
exercise, but the LAW!
There is no surplusage in the constitution, as Justice Marshall
noted! As the 2nd Amen is the ONLY amendment in the BoR that
spells out the PRECISE reason for it's being, one can't simply
ignore it or treat it as optional. This isn't a grammatical
exercise, but "a constitution we are expounding!" (Marshall)
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England: Introduction
Of the NATURE of LAWS in general.
ง. 2.
2. IF words happen to be ftill dubious, we may eftablifh their
meaning from the context; with which it may be of fingular ufe
to compare a word, or a fentence, whenever they are ambiguous,
equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often
called in to help the conftruction of an act of parliament. Of
the fame nature and ufe is the comparifon of a law with other
laws, that are made by the fame legiflator, that have fome
affinity with the fubject, or that expreffly relate to the fame
point.
the 2nd Amen makes NO reference to "weapons" at all! The
term is "BEAR ARMS" which is NOT about any weapons per se, but
about rendering military service in person in a well-regulated
militia!
The 2nd Amen (and the Const itself) neither prohibits NOR
permits gun ownership; it's SILENT on individual gun ownership!
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!
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.
"Gun advocates claim that the "right of the people" to keep and
bear arms is distributive, the right of every individual taken
singly. But the militia as "the people" was always the populus
armatus, in the corporate sense (one cannot be a one-person
militia; one must be formed into groups). Thus Trenchard calls
the militia "the people" even though as we have seen, the groups
he thought of were far from universal. The militia literature
often refers to "the great body of the people" as forming the
militia, and body (corpus) is a necessarily corporate term. The
great body means "the larger portion or sector of" (OED,
"great," 8:c). This usage came from concepts like "sovereignty
is in the people." This does not mean that every individual is
his or her own sovereign. When the American people revolted
against England, there were loyalists, hold-outs, pacifists who
did not join the revolution. Yet Americans claimed that the
"whole people" rose, as Madison wrote in the Federalist, since
the connection with body makes "whole" retain its original, its
etymological sense- wholesome, hale, sound (sanus). The whole
people is the corpus sanum, what Madison calls "the people at
large." Thus "the people" form militias though not every
individual is included in them." (Historian Garry Wills)
THE PEOPLE -- the Enfranchised Body Politic, or Freeman Class in
its collective and political capacity -- has the right to keep
and bear arms. This refers to SEVERAL rights.
THE COLLECTIVE or COMMUNITARIAN right is that the EBP can
democratically organize, control, arm and maintain the readiness
and upkeep of the state's militia or military function (keep
arms, as John Adams meant it), and man the well regulated state
militia and engage them in the common defense (bear arms, as
Madison meant it); this right is NOT fully distributive (does
any one individual "keep" all the inventory of the WHOLE
militia, or can any one militiaman decide unilaterally to "bear
arms" against the neighboring state?).
THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (other than the conscientious objector
right Madison sought) is that EACH qualified MEMBER of the
PEOPLE CLASS who is drawn from the "body of the PEOPLE" and thus
is IN the militia, may serve in the militia and may keep HIS
personal militia weapons at home, if feasible. Also, an
individual member of the PEOPLE class, whether in the militia or
not, may participate in the COLLECTIVE right to the extent that
he may VOTE on his civilian state reps who control the militia,
and some of his officers who run the militia, or otherwise get
more directly involved in the operation of the militia on an
administrative level.
There's also the RIGHT of the militias to survive and be
preserved, and the right of the states to maintain those state
militias, and use them for state purposes, and appoint the
officers and administer the discipline Congress provides for.
THAT'S IT!
And unless you know what the People refers to, it may as well be
in Chinese.
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?
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.
How about "keep arms"?
"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)
THE PEOPLE ALWAYS refers in the Const and BoR to
the enfranchised body politic in its collective and political
capacity.
As simple proof look at the Preamble, and Art. I's about THE
PEOPLE choosing the members of the House. IF THE PEOPLE simply
meant a "society of individuals" and individuals include women,
kids, blacks, injuns, furreners, felons, then the idea of all
those being involved in the political establishment of the
Const, or of voting towards the election of Congresscritters is
ludicrous on the face of it.
Or as was stated in the 1905 gun rights case CITY OF SALINA v.
BLAKSLEY. (Supreme Court of Kansas. Nov. 11, 1905.) [although
this deals with the Kansas state constitution, the legal meaning
of THE PEOPLE is clear]:
The provision in section 4 of the Bill of Rights "that the
people have the right to bear arms for their defense and
security" refers to the people as a collective body. It was the
safety and security of society that was being considered when
this provision was put into our Constitution. It is followed
immediately by the declaration that standing armies in time of
peace are dangerous to liberty and should not be tolerated, and
that "the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil
power." It deals exclusively with the military. Individual
rights are not considered in this section.
See... "the people as a collective body"! Not some late 20th
century communist invention, but a 1905 KANSAS judge! And this
follows an even earlier comment by a SCotUS justice in
Cruikshank:
What did the SCotUS in Cruikshank mean then, when they state
categorically that there ARE collective rights?!!! That was over
125 years ago! Were they lying? Wrong? Deluded? Communists?
"Citizens are the members of the political community to which
they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and
who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted
themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of
their general welfare and the protection of their individual as
well as their collective rights. In the formation of a
government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they
choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called
upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection
of the rights of its citizens and the people within its
jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a
government to afford protection is limited always by the power
it possesses for that purpose."
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"the protection of their individual as well as their collective
rights"
There it is in black and white from a Supreme Court Justice!
What does HE know that YOU don't? Apparently plenty! Care to
refute this?
--
Steven Krulick / s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Bama Brian
The anti-gunners would go after the states, one at a time, and attempt
to either get the states' constitutions changed, or have laws passed
that contravene the constitutions.
Regardless of what the Lone Weasel says, there are two things about the
2nd Amendment that are incontrovertible.
1. The Bill of Rights, which includes the 2A, does not _grant_ rights
at all. Instead, it only lists things which the fedgov must not do to
the people's civil rights.
2. The 2nd, in common with the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments
specifically states, "... the people ...".
Go see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
So by any _reasonable_ interpretation, it is a right of the people which
must not be limited by the fedgov, regardless of _why_ the amendment was
originally put there.
But the Weasel, and others like him, will quote astounding amounts of
trivia in order to convince everyone that the Bill of Rights doesn't
mean what it says in plain English.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
SaPeIsMa
"Doug Haxton" <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oe1uc0tq5kp6eo848...@4ax.com...
Then why ask the question ?
SaPeIsMa
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:18:08 GMT, "Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Doug Haxton" <dlha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:hg8qc0livjkrf4jf1...@4ax.com...
> >> Well, it's very simple (with the proper equipment) to show that
> >> Special Relativity has an objective reality to it; the universe
> >> *enforces* it.
> >
> >Actually, scientists don't consider that any theory is "true" or that
> >is "exists" just that it is a useful model for predicting events.
> >
> >Special Relativity is known to be "false" in the sense that it is
> >"special" -- only applicable to "special cases"; General Relativity
> >is required for the "general case" and it, along with the other
> >best tested theory ever devised disagree with each other.
> >
> >What an irony that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,
> >the two best tested theories ever, are incompatible with each
> >other. Both right in their own context but not useable (so far)
> >together.
> >
> >The truth about RIGHTS is if they do not exist then they are
> >secured by force of arms.
> >
> >They are EITHER inherrent or CREATED by armed men
> >willing to die for them.
>
> Exactly. Rights are created. They're a concept invented by humans.
That's like declaring that the laws of gravitation were invented by Newton
Or that the Theory of Relativity was an invention of Einstein.
These are things that have been deduced by observation and modeling.
Ditto for rights.
Christopher Morton
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>You know this entire argument about RKBA is not about whether
>we approve of it or not, or question its existence, but only
>whether the Second Amendment grants a personal right to have
>guns. The contemporaneous evidence is overwhelming that it
>doesn't do that.
That's a lie, but then White supremacists like you are invariably
liars:
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any
word and your cynical manipulation of my expression won't
ever make me a racist or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." -
Lee Harrison
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Exactly. Rights are created. They're a concept invented by humans.
Rights are inherent in humanity.