2nd Amendment for Dummies
RAY
>
> Considering the way Hamilton died, it's quite apparent that he
> believed in RKBA outside of Militia Duty or Militia related functions,
> Ray.. Dueling Pistols are hardly standard Militia Issue...
>
> Any comments or questions about the man's death?
RR: Perhaps you have Hamilton's last words... you
know the ones where he said:
"Oh shit, I never meant for dueling guns to be
part of the RKBA..." :-)
Michael Cidras
RAY wrote in message <369199DF...@Interaccess.com>...
And here's the rest of the story.
Hamilton felt that Aaron Burr was trying to subvert the Republican system
and did all he could do to damage him politically. Hamilton helped
Jefferson to beat him to the presidency in 1800 and was largely responsible
for him being denied the Governorship of New York in 1804. Burr took
extreme unction to this and being called a traitor and called Hamilton out.
It turns out that Hamilton had an extreme distaste for dueling (his son
Philip had died 3 years earlier during a duel) and intentionally fired into
the air, while Burr had no such problems with dueling and shot Hamilton
dead.
Excerpt from "The World's Great Handguns from 1450 to the Present Day" by
Roger Ford.
RAY
> THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
> INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
> BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
> not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
> founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
> and individual property rights.
RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
infringement an individual right for citizens in
militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
M. Eglestone
> M. Eglestone wrote:
> ME: Considering the way Hamilton died, it's quite apparent that he
> believed in RKBA outside of Militia Duty or Militia related functions,
> Ray.. Dueling Pistols are hardly standard Militia Issue...
> Any comments or questions about the man's death?
=============================================
> RR: Perhaps you have Hamilton's last words... you
> know the ones where he said:
> "Oh shit, I never meant for dueling guns to be
> part of the RKBA..." :-)
=============================================
> DZ: Although the "smiley" helps, it should be pointed out that Ray has made up
> this quotation in its entirety. Evidently he has no comment of substance on
> the subject.
============================================
ME: It's always interesting to note how a person really lived, and
then read what they wrote. In Hamilton's case, he lived a fairly wild
life in and out of the political arena. The same thing applies to Ben
Franklin. He loved to run the ladies and, indulge in strong drink.
Perhaps Hamilton would have lived longer if Brady had been in effect,
and he also had to wait for 10 days before getting those dueling
pistols (ROTFLMAO)...
Mike Eglestone
---------------
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
likely to end up with either.
Frank Zember
RAY, you are indeed a dolt. You really need to read the Constitution,
specifically information relating to militia membership. You have
finally admitted that one needs only to be eligible for service in the
unorganized militia to qualify to INDIVIDUALLY posess arms.
Lock N Load
>Lock N Load wrote:
>> THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
>> INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
>> BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
>> not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
>> founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
>> and individual property rights.
>
>RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
>infringement an individual right for citizens in
>militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
You know Ray you shouldn't tease this way, I'm glad you think you agree with me, but if you re-read
my post you will note that I do not limit the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to "citizens in the
Militia" or "Militia Arms"
If it makes you feel any better, I believe our society has the power to regulate firearms, just NOT
to the point where we would not have any viable arms to protect ourselves from *it* Which I believe
is the true spirit behind the 2nd Amendment.
Also we still retain our right to individual self-defense.
Political Writings of John Locke (ISBN 0-451-62861-6)
The Second Treatise of Government
Of Political or Civil Society
"...whererver any persons are who have not such an authority to appeal to for the decision of any
difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature.....For wherever any
two men are who have no standing rule and common judge to appeal to on earth for the determination
of controversies of right betwixt them, there they are still in the state of nature, and under all
the inconveniences of it..."
>
Don't tow the party line
Think for yourself
Do not be afraid
Lock N Load
Sam A. Kersh
>Lock N Load wrote:
>> THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
>> INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
>> BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
>> not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
>> founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
>> and individual property rights.
>
>RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
>infringement an individual right for citizens in
>militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
RAY falsely claims militia membership as a requirement for firearms
ownership. Merely looking at the life and times shows RAY to be wrong.
So what else is new?
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
LEAA Life
TSRA L-111738
JPFO
Training is Sergeant's Business
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/
===============================================================
talk.politics.guns' resident hypocrite admits to using a gun
by proxy
"So for me and my family, all we need for protection
against crime is some basic knowledge of where not to
travel, and how to travel there if we have to. For
instance, I've had to go into the Cabrini and Taylor Homes
in Chicago a number of times, but because they are
high-crime areas, I go in daylight, to meet someone I know,
with a bodyguard."
Robert L. Ray aka ki...@interaccess.com
Paladine
> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 23:57:05 -0600, RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> >Lock N Load wrote:
> >> THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
> >> INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
> >> BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
> >> not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
> >> founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
> >> and individual property rights.
> >
> >RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
> >infringement an individual right for citizens in
> >militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
>
> RAY, you are indeed a dolt. You really need to read the Constitution,
> specifically information relating to militia membership. You have
> finally admitted that one needs only to be eligible for service in the
> unorganized militia to qualify to INDIVIDUALLY posess arms.
Better check your US Codes on that one. the definition of an Unorganized
militia under US law states "All able bodied men 18 to 45" If I remember
right after age 32 you are no longer eligible for service.
This arguement is mute though. The part of the 2nd Amendment that refers to a
militia has no bearing on the basic function of the Amendment itself. The
only part that is legally valid is "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms" Noun, "shall not be infringed" Verb, all else is not valid legally.
Bill
--
Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial/junk/spam e-mail
WILL be charged a US $500 proof reading fee. DO NOT send unsolicited
advertisements and do NOT add my e-mail address to your list(s):
"By US Code Title 47 Sec.227(a)(2)(B) a computer/modem/printer meets the
definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful
to send any unsolicited advertisements to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable
by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is
greater,
for each violation."
RAY
> > >Lock N Load wrote:
> > >> THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
> > >> INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
> > >> BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
> > >> not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
> > >> founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
> > >> and individual property rights.
> > >
> > >RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
> > >infringement an individual right for citizens in
> > >militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
> >
> >FZ: RAY, you are indeed a dolt. You really need to read the Constitution,
> > specifically information relating to militia membership.
RR: Militia Membership? There's nothing in the
Constitution that specifies who belongs in a
militia. Article one leaves that up to Congress.
And the 2nd Amendment only says that
militiapersons must be well-regulated. I think
you have been Reading a different Constitution
than the rest of us.
> >FZ: You have
> > finally admitted that one needs only to be eligible for service in the
> > unorganized militia to qualify to INDIVIDUALLY posess arms.
RR: Make that enrolled in a well-regulated
militia.. and I'll agree with you.
>Palatine: Better check your US Codes on that one. the definition of an Unorganized
> militia under US law states "All able bodied men 18 to 45" If I remember
> right after age 32 you are no longer eligible for service.
> This arguement is mute though. The part of the 2nd Amendment that refers to a
> militia has no bearing on the basic function of the Amendment itself. The
> only part that is legally valid is "the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms" Noun, "shall not be infringed" Verb, all else is not valid legally.
RR: Hmmm.. you just decided that on your own..
that half the amendment is invalid. My, my.
Wonder why they even bothered to write it then.
RAY
> If it makes you feel any better, I believe our
> society has the power to regulate firearms,
> just NOT to the point where we would not have
> any viable arms to protect ourselves from *it*
> Which I believe is the true spirit behind the
> 2nd Amendment.
RR: Again, I agree with you, assuming you mean
for 'it' to be tyranny.
>LL: Also we still retain our right to individual self-defense.
> Political Writings of John Locke (ISBN 0-451-62861-6)
> The Second Treatise of Government
> Of Political or Civil Society
> "...whererver any persons are who have not such an authority to appeal to for the decision of any
> difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature.....For wherever any
> two men are who have no standing rule and common judge to appeal to on earth for the determination
> of controversies of right betwixt them, there they are still in the state of nature, and under all
> the inconveniences of it..."
RR: Agreed on the natural law right of individual
self-defense (self preservation being the natural
inclination of our species).
But of course only radical gunners believe
that guns are part of that right. Locke's Nature
Boy was never pictured with an AK-47 slung over
his shoulder. Fig leaf, yes. Flak jacket, no.
RAY
> > RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
> > infringement an individual right for citizens in
> > militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
>
>S: Which Ray now attempts to define in an utterly different manner.
> Specifically, according to the exact and specific statements just made by
> Ray, I would be protected under the 2nd........
>
> 1) I am a citizen
> 2) I am in a well regulated militia (even according to Ray)
RR: Actually, I'm rethinking that part, based on
32USC109c, which Ernie has pointed out defines
your Virginia Defense Force as "troops," which we
know to be standing army soldiers rather than
militiamen.
Besides, as I frequently must point out to
you, you cannot 'bear militia arms' in your VDF
because your VDF has a written policy against it.
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<3692FB31...@Interaccess.com>...
> Lock N Load wrote:
> > THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
> > INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
> > BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
> > not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
> > founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
> > and individual property rights.
>
> RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
> infringement an individual right for citizens in
> militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
Which Ray now attempts to define in an utterly different manner.
Specifically, according to the exact and specific statements just made by
Ray, I would be protected under the 2nd........
1) I am a citizen
2) I am in a well regulated militia (even according to Ray)
Thus it directly follows that the federal government can not infringe upon
my individual right to keep and bear my militia arms. Why because, under
federal law I am prohibited from buying a new M16A2, which is the standard
issue arm for most of the organized militia.
I Ray just declared I am protected under the 2nd......
except Ray is now going to produce all kind of conditions, without ever
getting about to providing their historical basis, why I am not covered.
Frank Zember
wrote:
>>
>> RAY, you are indeed a dolt. You really need to read the Constitution,
>> specifically information relating to militia membership. You have
>> finally admitted that one needs only to be eligible for service in the
>> unorganized militia to qualify to INDIVIDUALLY posess arms.
>
>Better check your US Codes on that one. the definition of an Unorganized
>militia under US law states "All able bodied men 18 to 45" If I remember
>right after age 32 you are no longer eligible for service.
Part of my contention is that we have a large number of legislative
items ALREADY which fly in the face of Constitutionally delegated
authority.
Frank Zember
>Paladine wrote:
>
>> > >Lock N Load wrote:
>> > >> THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
>> > >> INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
>> > >> BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
>> > >> not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
>> > >> founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
>> > >> and individual property rights.
>> > >
>> > >RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
>> > >infringement an individual right for citizens in
>> > >militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
>> >
>> >FZ: RAY, you are indeed a dolt. You really need to read the Constitution,
>> > specifically information relating to militia membership.
>
>RR: Militia Membership? There's nothing in the
>Constitution that specifies who belongs in a
>militia. Article one leaves that up to Congress.
>And the 2nd Amendment only says that
>militiapersons must be well-regulated. I think
>you have been Reading a different Constitution
>than the rest of us.
Wrong again, Ray. The 2nd DOES NOT mandate the militia. It simply
states that as the militia is drawn from our citizenry, that we secure
the arms and armament of that militia through arming the citizenry.
In most basic terms, "Our militia is comprised of INDIVIDUALS selected
from the whole body of our citizens. Therefore, we guarantee that the
militia not be debarred access to arms by ensuring ALL citizens are
armed".
>>Palatine: Better check your US Codes on that one. the definition of an Unorganized
>> militia under US law states "All able bodied men 18 to 45" If I remember
>> right after age 32 you are no longer eligible for service.
>> This arguement is mute though. The part of the 2nd Amendment that refers to a
>> militia has no bearing on the basic function of the Amendment itself. The
>> only part that is legally valid is "the right of the people to keep and bear
>> arms" Noun, "shall not be infringed" Verb, all else is not valid legally.
>
>RR: Hmmm.. you just decided that on your own..
>that half the amendment is invalid. My, my.
>Wonder why they even bothered to write it then.
Ray, use of both narrow and broader qualifying statements not actually
affecting the protection guaranteed by that statement is pretty
commonplace in instruments created in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries:
1842 Rhode Island Constitution: "The liberty of the press being
essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may
publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of
that liberty". Clearly this passage protects the rights of ANY
person, despite employment status by a press organization, while
mentioned as qualifier, to publish on any subject with commensurate
responsibility under law.
There are literally dozens of similar examples.
RD Thompson
>Lock N Load wrote:
>> THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
>> INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
>> BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
>> not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
>> founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
>> and individual property rights.
>
>RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
>infringement an individual right for citizens in
>militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
Not quite. They aimed to protect from federal infringement an
individual right for citizens to keep and bear arms so that they could
be used in the militias.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
Liberals wish to rid us of guns....conservatives wish to rid us of drugs...
Between the two, they are ridding us of our rights and freedom....
Sandman, (1997)
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is
not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it dependent in any manner on
that instrument for its existence.
Cruickshank 92 US 542 (1876)
RD Thompson
wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 23:57:05 -0600, RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>>Lock N Load wrote:
>>> THE POINT IS that the founding generation understood and accepted that
>>> INDAVIDUAL citizens will keep and bear arms, and that those arms CAN
>>> BE used in defense of the civil society. The founding generation were
>>> not setting up a feudal society, they were establishing a society
>>> founded on the Lockeian philosophy, which promotes individual freedom
>>> and individual property rights.
>>
>>RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
>>infringement an individual right for citizens in
>>militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
>
>RAY, you are indeed a dolt. You really need to read the Constitution,
>specifically information relating to militia membership. You have
>finally admitted that one needs only to be eligible for service in the
>unorganized militia to qualify to INDIVIDUALLY posess arms.
Individual RKBA is outside the Constitution and not dependant on the
militia.
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
Info at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
RAY wrote:
There's nothing in the
> Constitution that specifies who belongs in a
> militia. Article one leaves that up to Congress.
> And the 2nd Amendment only says that
> militiapersons must be well-regulated. I think
> you have been Reading a different Constitution
> than the rest of us.
DY: RAY is clearly incorrect. The Second Amendment specifies that a militia
of the people is necessary to secure liberty, and it guarantees that the
people have a right to possess and know how to use their own arms in order
to assure that an effective militia of the people exists - in spite of
government action or inaction. This Bill of Rights provision is directed
against the government just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, and just
as the related state bills of rights provisions on which the federal Bill
of Rights was based were directed against the state governments.
"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."
Only a gun control advocate can wrest "militiapersons must be
well-regulated" out of the above sentence.
Paladine
> RR: Hmmm.. you just decided that on your own..
> that half the amendment is invalid. My, my.
> Wonder why they even bothered to write it then.
Well here is where I get my reasoning and opinion from.
Re: WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU
The following article appeared in the September, 1991 issue of \California
Libertarian News\, official newsletter of the California Libertarian Party.
Reproduction on computer bulletin boards is permitted for informational
purposes only. Copyright (c) 1991 by J. Neil Schulman. All other rights
reserved.
ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles
Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement
English for several years at Van Nuys High School, as well as
having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin. I was referred
to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of
the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the
foremost expert in grammar in the Los Angeles Unified School
District -- the person she and others go to when they need a
definitive answer on English grammar.
I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me,
then asked him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall
not be infringed."
Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but
that the meaning could be extracted anyway.
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a
participial phrase modifying "electorate"
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of
the people"
"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an
adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"
"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right"
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it
clearer. Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to
keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate -- say,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?" He said, "No."
I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the
Second Amendment in full:
"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."
He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that
he hadn't recognized it.
I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same
as the sentence I first quoted you?" He said, "yes." I asked
him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer. He transformed
it the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred
years. He said, "No."
I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to
restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated
militia." He said, "no." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence
means that the people \are\ the militia, and that the people
have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right
can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki: "No, I can't see that."
Schulman: "Could another, professional in English grammar or
linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his
professional reputation on this opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion
on the Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and
bear arms.
J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991
I didnt write this I just agree with it.
Paladine
> Part of my contention is that we have a large number of legislative
> items ALREADY which fly in the face of Constitutionally delegated
> authority.
>
Agreed to a point.
Considering that Gun-Control laws seem to affect the purchase of a weapon more
often than they restrict our ownership. I believe that might be part of the reason
that there has been no serious contention to the laws. There are probably laws
that I am unaware of that bar ownership of a weapon but I think it would be
possible to argue that once you have possession of a weapon the goverment cant
keep you from bearing it.
Sam A. Kersh
>RR: Hmmm.. you just decided that on your own..
>that half the amendment is invalid. My, my.
>Wonder why they even bothered to write it then.
As far as "re-writes" are concerned, RAY-RAY has consistently rewritten
FP #29, the Second Amendment, U.S. v Miller and Title 10 of the U.S.
Codes to suit his anti-gun agenda..... all while hiding behind an
armed body guard.
M. Eglestone
> Constitution that specifies who belongs in a
> militia. Article one leaves that up to Congress.
> And the 2nd Amendment only says that
> militiapersons must be well-regulated. I think
> you have been Reading a different Constitution
> than the rest of us.
===================================================================
Excuse ME, but where does the word "MUST" exist in the 2nd Amendment.
It doesn't say a single thing about about a Militia Person who MUST be
well regulated.
I think you are confusing Article 1, Section 8 with the Amendment TO
that Article which is commonly know as the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd
Amendment alters Article 1, Section 8, and specifies that the PEOPLE
are the Militia by giving them the Right to keep and bear Arms. It
also says that the RIGHT shall not be infringed.
The Militia Laws which were established in 1792 were built upon the
FACT that the PEOPLE had the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms. The entire
premise of that LAW was contingent upon the fact that the people would
come forward and serve in an established Militia if necessary for the
defense of the State or the Nation. RKBA within, or external to,
Militia Duty was a fact of life in this country. It could BE no other
way.
The RIGHT of the people to Keep and Bear Arms still exists, Ray. It
was recognized long before the writing of the Constitution, and it was
again recognized IN the Constitution.
It has nothing to do with a person being signed up, or well
regulated, in any Militia of any kind. Men with their personal ARMS,
in defense of themselves and the nation.
Acting as private citizens, or as a group of concerned citizens with
a common cause, it makes no difference one way or the other.
Organized, or unorganized, RKBA exists in either case. History set the
precedent. It has stood for a long, long time.
Why did congress make provisions to ARM the Militia. Simple Fact: The
PEOPLE didn't have enough guns to get the job done or, the States
couldn't afford to pay for them. Hence, the Federal Government bought
and paid for (and distributed) guns to the PEOPLE under Article 1,
Section 8 of the Constitution. However, this took place many years
AFTER both the original Constitution and the 2nd Amendment were
written. Where do you suppose those arms came from between events?
Perhaps from the PEOPLE with RKBA?
Ray, there were NO laws then which prohibited a person from using a
Federally Provided Arm for personal use. It was expected that a person
would use those arms to defend himself and his family when not in the
service of the State or the Nation. A DEAD Militia person is hardly of
use to anybody. Some chose to take Government Arms, some chose to use
their own personal Arms. In either case, those ARMS were freely used
in both a private and official capacity. No LAW prohibited this
activity. Again, a precedent WAS established.
You man twist the 2nd Amendment wording until it yells (RAPE) but
historical precedent will still put the words (The RIGHT of the PEOPLE
to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed) at the fore front of
every event that turned 13 English Colonies into the strongest nation
on earth in less than 200 years. That RIGHT, and that RIGHT alone
built this country, Ray. Our strength lies in the WILL of the PEOPLE
to resist all aggression no matter what form it might take. If we have
to do it with our own personal weapons, that's fine with us.
Mike Eglestone
---------------
Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
Ernie Alston
>
> But of course only radical gunners believe
>that guns are part of that right. Locke's Nature
>Boy was never pictured with an AK-47 slung over
>his shoulder. Fig leaf, yes. Flak jacket, no.
<L> Never thought of it in that light before, but
your right.
Insure Domestic Tranquiulity.
Ernie.
Lock N Load
>Lock N Load wrote:
>> If it makes you feel any better, I believe our
>> society has the power to regulate firearms,
>> just NOT to the point where we would not have
>> any viable arms to protect ourselves from *it*
>> Which I believe is the true spirit behind the
>> 2nd Amendment.
>
>RR: Again, I agree with you, assuming you mean
>for 'it' to be tyranny.
I do
>>LL: Also we still retain our right to individual self-defense.
>> Political Writings of John Locke (ISBN 0-451-62861-6)
>> The Second Treatise of Government
>> Of Political or Civil Society
>> "...whererver any persons are who have not such an authority to appeal to for the decision of any
>> difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature.....For wherever any
>> two men are who have no standing rule and common judge to appeal to on earth for the determination
>> of controversies of right betwixt them, there they are still in the state of nature, and under all
>> the inconveniences of it..."
>
>RR: Agreed on the natural law right of individual
>self-defense (self preservation being the natural
>inclination of our species).
> But of course only radical gunners believe
>that guns are part of that right. Locke's Nature
>Boy was never pictured with an AK-47 slung over
>his shoulder. Fig leaf, yes. Flak jacket, no.
I think Mr. Locke was familiar with weapons other then sticks and
stones.
But the core message is that we do have the right to self-defense
(also if you read more of Locke’s Second Treatise you will find that
armed resistance to tyranny is also a right), and in this day and age,
I believe that firearms are the best tool for self-defense and/or
resistance to tyranny.
What do you think would be the better tool for resistance to tyranny,
a bolt action hunting rifle or an AK-47?
Just to let you know. Resorting to the use of arms for either self or
civil defense is always a *last* resort. We should maintain the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms, and we should preserve it for our children,
grandchildren...ect.
>
Don't tow the party line
No Whining No Mercy
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<36944336...@Interaccess.com>...
> Scout wrote:
>
> > > RR: Agreed. They aimed to protect from federal
> > > infringement an individual right for citizens in
> > > militias to keep and bear their militia arms.
> >
> >S: Which Ray now attempts to define in an utterly different manner.
> > Specifically, according to the exact and specific statements just made
by
> > Ray, I would be protected under the 2nd........
> >
> > 1) I am a citizen
> > 2) I am in a well regulated militia (even according to Ray)
>
> RR: Actually, I'm rethinking that part, based on
> 32USC109c, which Ernie has pointed out defines
> your Virginia Defense Force as "troops," which we
> know to be standing army soldiers rather than
> militiamen.
Actually much less than the National Guard are soldiers, in fact, we are
almost as close to a classic organized militia as you can get. If we are
not the well regulated militia of which you speak then that leaves only the
unorganized or the non-government organized militias left.
> Besides, as I frequently must point out to
> you, you cannot 'bear militia arms' in your VDF
> because your VDF has a written policy against it.
Sorry, but I can, since I have obtained specific permission to violate that
general policy. If Ray truly were a military vet he would understand how
this works, but since it is clear that he is not a vet, then he has to make
up the excuses as he goes along. However, let me ask you, where exactly in
the 2nd does it say the federal government can violate my rights as long as
the state permits it? I thought it was "shall not be infringed." So ok,
let's assume that my state (despite the VA Constitution) can prohibit me
arms, how exactly does that excuse the violations of the 2nd by the federal
government. Either they can violate the right of the militia to keep and
bear arms, or they can not. It's either one or the other. So which is it?
Does the 2nd apply to the federal government, if so then kindly explain the
violations they have enacted into law, or does it not apply to the federal
government, in which case you can inform us of who the 2nd does address and
what purpose it serves.
Scout
Paladine <paladin...@home.com> wrote in article
<3695408C...@home.com>...
> Frank Zember wrote:
>
> > Part of my contention is that we have a large number of legislative
> > items ALREADY which fly in the face of Constitutionally delegated
> > authority.
> >
>
> Agreed to a point.
> Considering that Gun-Control laws seem to affect the purchase of a weapon
more
> often than they restrict our ownership. I believe that might be part of
the reason
> that there has been no serious contention to the laws. There are probably
laws
> that I am unaware of that bar ownership of a weapon but I think it would
be
> possible to argue that once you have possession of a weapon the goverment
cant
> keep you from bearing it.
The BATF would disagree with you, if not obtain a Class III weapon of
recent manufacture, and try to bear it.
RAY
> In most basic terms, "Our militia is comprised of INDIVIDUALS selected
> from the whole body of our citizens. Therefore, we guarantee that the
> militia not be debarred access to arms by ensuring ALL citizens are
> armed".
RR: Now why on earth would the founding fathers
think that my 76 year old aunt would be of any
possible use to a militia if she is armed?
In point of fact, the 2nd Congress limited
militiapersons to certain ages and to males, and
allowed the States to limit them further according
to status.
They it required all remaining citizens to
sign up and begin official militia training.
It's for THOSE people in THOSE militias that the
2nd Amendment was passed.
> FZ: Ray, use of both narrow and broader qualifying statements not actually
> affecting the protection guaranteed by that statement is pretty
> commonplace in instruments created in the late 18th and early 19th
> centuries:
> 1842 Rhode Island Constitution: "The liberty of the press being
> essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may
> publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of
> that liberty". Clearly this passage protects the rights of ANY
> person, despite employment status by a press organization, while
> mentioned as qualifier, to publish on any subject with commensurate
> responsibility under law.
RR: "Press" and "Publication" were the same thing
back then. If you 'published' anything, you
automatically were exercising the liberty of the
press. Care to try again? The same could be
said today, with some hi-tech additions: If I put
out a weekly neighborhood newsletter for free on
my word processor, I become a member of the
"press"
The same thing if I publish my own book.
RAY
> > RR: Hmmm.. you just decided that on your own..
> > that half the amendment is invalid. My, my.
> > Wonder why they even bothered to write it then.
>
> P: Well here is where I get my reasoning and opinion from.
RR: Actually the meaning has changed in 200 years,
but Brocki, being no historian, wouldn't have
known that. The "people" in the 18th century were
citizens, usually propertied free white males
having come of age.
Today the "people" includes non-citizens, as
well as women and other races.
> I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to
> restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated
> militia." He said, "no." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence
> means that the people \are\ the militia, and that the people
> have the right which is mentioned.
> I asked him again to make sure:
> Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right
> can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"
> Brocki: "No, I can't see that."
RR: Neil being a freelance writer, enjoys playing
and misrepresenting words.
Brocki has admitted that 'the people'
are/were 'the militia.' But he denies that the
RKBA applies to a well-regulated militia (meaning
an organization).
What is unwritten here but implied is that
the RKBA applies only to 'the people' who are 'the
militia,' and in the 2nd Amendment's case, this
means the 'well-regulated militia.'
In effect, Brocki agrees with me. You must
be among those 'people' within a well-regulated
militia to enjoy 2nd Amendment protection of your
RKBA.
I suspect Neil, being a libertarian writer,
has falsely misrepresented Brocki's view to make
it appear as though Brocki is saying that the RKBA
applies to people outside the well-regulated
militia.
RAY
> >>LL: Also we still retain our right to individual self-defense.
> >> Political Writings of John Locke (ISBN 0-451-62861-6)
> >> The Second Treatise of Government
> >> Of Political or Civil Society
> >> "...whererver any persons are who have not such an authority to appeal to for the decision of any
> >> difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature.....For wherever any
> >> two men are who have no standing rule and common judge to appeal to on earth for the determination
> >> of controversies of right betwixt them, there they are still in the state of nature, and under all
> >> the inconveniences of it..."
> >
> >RR: Agreed on the natural law right of individual
> >self-defense (self preservation being the natural
> >inclination of our species).
> > But of course only radical gunners believe
> >that guns are part of that right. Locke's Nature
> >Boy was never pictured with an AK-47 slung over
> >his shoulder. Fig leaf, yes. Flak jacket, no.
>
>LL I think Mr. Locke was familiar with weapons other then sticks and
> stones.
RR: The right to self-defense was merely the right
to resist. This itself was revolutionary after
centuries of Feudal law, which forbid large
segments of the population from having any right
to resist the nobility. Even in the 18th century
it still had not been applied to slaves or wives
(vis a vis their husbands). But the right to
resist did not imply any particular method of
resistance. That was left to the rules of
society.
>LL: But the core message is that we do have the right to self-defense
> (also if you read more of Locke’s Second Treatise you will find that
> armed resistance to tyranny is also a right), and in this day and age,
> I believe that firearms are the best tool for self-defense and/or
> resistance to tyranny.'
RR: Armed resistance to tyranny was indeed a
right, but it was considered to be a collective
right, and guns were not mentioned. As you said,
Locke would have known of guns in his day. So if
he had meant for there to be a right to resist
with guns, he certainly would have said so.
>LL: What do you think would be the better tool for resistance to tyranny,
> a bolt action hunting rifle or an AK-47?
RR: Actually I think the most effective deterrant
to tyranny would be hydrogen bombs in our
cellars. Does that mean I have a right to get
one?
> LL: Just to let you know. Resorting to the use of arms for either self or
> civil defense is always a *last* resort. We should maintain the Right
> to Keep and Bear Arms, and we should preserve it for our children,
> grandchildren...ect.
RR: Agreed. I have never advocated repeal of the
2nd Amendment. It's a dead issue right now, but
you never know when it might come in handy.
RAY
> > > Ray, I would be protected under the 2nd........
> > >
> > > 1) I am a citizen
> > > 2) I am in a well regulated militia (even according to Ray)
> >
> > RR: Actually, I'm rethinking that part, based on
> > 32USC109c, which Ernie has pointed out defines
> > your Virginia Defense Force as "troops," which we
> > know to be standing army soldiers rather than
> > militiamen.
>
>SS: Actually much less than the National Guard are soldiers, in fact, we are
> almost as close to a classic organized militia as you can get. If we are
> not the well regulated militia of which you speak then that leaves only the
> unorganized or the non-government organized militias left.
RR: Neither of which is the well-regulated
militia of the founding fathers.
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369797CC...@Interaccess.com>...
> Frank Zember wrote:
> > In most basic terms, "Our militia is comprised of INDIVIDUALS selected
> > from the whole body of our citizens. Therefore, we guarantee that the
> > militia not be debarred access to arms by ensuring ALL citizens are
> > armed".
>
> RR: Now why on earth would the founding fathers
> think that my 76 year old aunt would be of any
> possible use to a militia if she is armed?
> In point of fact, the 2nd Congress limited
> militiapersons to certain ages and to males, and
> allowed the States to limit them further according
> to status.
> They it required all remaining citizens to
> sign up and begin official militia training.
> It's for THOSE people in THOSE militias that the
> 2nd Amendment was passed.
So then you are now denying the claims you made that "the people" meant
exactly the same as "the well regulated militia" according to the founding
fathers......if so let me point out the right protected is that of "the
people" NOT "the well regulated militia".
Scout
Scout <sc...@monumental.com> wrote in article
<01be3bff$35aecce0$751e7cd1@scoutp>...
Further let's see what Ray has to say about who "the people" are then and
now.
*** Restore ***
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<36979C2A...@Interaccess.com>...
> RR: Actually the meaning has changed in 200 years,
> but Brocki, being no historian, wouldn't have
> known that. The "people" in the 18th century were
> citizens, usually propertied free white males
> having come of age.
> Today the "people" includes non-citizens, as
> well as women and other races.
*** End ***
So let's see, "the people" does NOT mean the militia. So tell us when the
2nd stated that keeping and bearing arms is a right of "the people", we are
to read that as right "of the militia", and when that right of "the people"
is declared to be protected, they really were talking about "the militia"?
Ray, either "the people" means the same as "the militia", or your
contention that the 2nd applies only the "the militia" is wrong.
So which is it?
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<3697A01F...@Interaccess.com>...
Right, the well regulated militia of the founding fathers you point to is
that formed by UMA '97, which he declares is NOT the same militia as
organized by the states, localities, or individuals. Further such a militia
as described in UMA '97 is in no manner similar to the National Guard
(another federal militia).
So let's see. We disavow the federal militia, we deny the state militias,
we ignore the local or private militias, and are left with nothing........
Saying in effect that the 2nd Amendment protects no one because the federal
government refuses to require them to bear arms.......
The World according to Ray: That which is not mandatory is prohibited.
>
RD Thompson
>Frank Zember wrote:
>> In most basic terms, "Our militia is comprised of INDIVIDUALS selected
>> from the whole body of our citizens. Therefore, we guarantee that the
>> militia not be debarred access to arms by ensuring ALL citizens are
>> armed".
>
>RR: Now why on earth would the founding fathers
>think that my 76 year old aunt would be of any
>possible use to a militia if she is armed?
They wouldn't. Your 76 year old aunt is covered under Cruickshank as
far as the Supreme Court is concerned. Now there is no reason why she
could not volunteer for militia duty.
RD Thompson
It does.
RAY
>
> RAY wrote:
>
> > Constitution that specifies who belongs in a
> > militia. Article one leaves that up to Congress.
> > And the 2nd Amendment only says that
> > militiapersons must be well-regulated. I think
> > you have been Reading a different Constitution
> > than the rest of us.
> ===================================================================
>
> Excuse ME, but where does the word "MUST" exist in the 2nd Amendment.
> It doesn't say a single thing about about a Militia Person who MUST be
> well regulated.
>
> I think you are confusing Article 1, Section 8 with the Amendment TO
> that Article which is commonly know as the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd
> Amendment alters Article 1, Section 8, and specifies that the PEOPLE
> are the Militia by giving them the Right to keep and bear Arms. It
> also says that the RIGHT shall not be infringed.
RR: Correction: The 2nd Am specifies that the
PEOPLE are the WELL REGULATED militia.
Thus, if you are not in a well regulated militia
right now, you are not among the 'people' of the
2nd Amendment.
> The Militia Laws which were established in 1792 were built upon the
> FACT that the PEOPLE had the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms. The entire
> premise of that LAW was contingent upon the fact that the people would
> come forward and serve in an established Militia if necessary for the
> defense of the State or the Nation. RKBA within, or external to,
> Militia Duty was a fact of life in this country. It could BE no other
> way.
RR: There is nothing in the Militia Laws of 1792
which indicates any 'external' RKBA outside of
Militia Duty.
> The RIGHT of the people to Keep and Bear Arms still exists, Ray. It
> was recognized long before the writing of the Constitution, and it was
> again recognized IN the Constitution.
>
> It has nothing to do with a person being signed up, or well
> regulated, in any Militia of any kind. Men with their personal ARMS,
> in defense of themselves and the nation.
>
> Acting as private citizens, or as a group of concerned citizens with
> a common cause, it makes no difference one way or the other.
> Organized, or unorganized, RKBA exists in either case. History set the
> precedent. It has stood for a long, long time.
>
> Why did congress make provisions to ARM the Militia. Simple Fact: The
> PEOPLE didn't have enough guns to get the job done or, the States
> couldn't afford to pay for them. Hence, the Federal Government bought
> and paid for (and distributed) guns to the PEOPLE under Article 1,
> Section 8 of the Constitution. However, this took place many years
> AFTER both the original Constitution and the 2nd Amendment were
> written. Where do you suppose those arms came from between events?
> Perhaps from the PEOPLE with RKBA?
RR: You bring up an interesting point, that
Congress eventually helped supply arms to 'the
people.' The question, however, is whether the
reason for the arms was ONLY for militia duty, or
for personal reasons as well.
I think if you will survey the record, you
will find that the arms given out by government
were meant to go ONLY for militia duty. There is
nothing in the Congressional record to the effect
that government guns were being distributed to
shoot chickens. Thus, Congress did not feel that
there was any RKBA external to the militia.
> Ray, there were NO laws then which prohibited a person from using a
> Federally Provided Arm for personal use. It was expected that a person
> would use those arms to defend himself and his family when not in the
> service of the State or the Nation. A DEAD Militia person is hardly of
> use to anybody. Some chose to take Government Arms, some chose to use
> their own personal Arms. In either case, those ARMS were freely used
> in both a private and official capacity. No LAW prohibited this
> activity. Again, a precedent WAS established.
RR: Except it was still perfectly legal for local
authorities to take those same arms away from 'the
people' for whatever local legislative reason
existed. The only purpose which the local
authorities could not touch was the purpose of
using those arms in the militia.
This again proves that the purpose of those
public arms was a public purpose.. use in a
government sponsored militia.
M. Eglestone
> RR: Now why on earth would the founding fathers
> think that my 76 year old aunt would be of any
> possible use to a militia if she is armed?
> In point of fact, the 2nd Congress limited
> militiapersons to certain ages and to males, and
> allowed the States to limit them further according
> to status.
> They it required all remaining citizens to
> sign up and begin official militia training.
> It's for THOSE people in THOSE militias that the
> 2nd Amendment was passed.
======================================================================
ME: First Off, Ray, your Grandmother might just be the most valuable
asset a Militia could have (IF) she had special skills that were
required. Age is seldom a consideration in war efforts. It's only
consider go be a limiting factor to front line troops. I'm still
subject to recall, and I'm 54 years old.
Where you get yourself screwed up on the AGE limits that are listed
is in the fact that those limits are for "initial service." Once IN
service, advanced age plays no role. At the same time, those are the
limits placed on (full service) personnel only. HQ and Support people
can be WAY beyond the upper age limit and still serve with honor.
Congress and the States MAY have required people to sign up for a
Militia but, when a war broke out, they took any warm body they could
get their hands on. Young men who were under age fought side by side
with men who were over age. Old Men and Women were also used in other
areas. They served the Medical Corps, Cooked Food, Loaded Guns and
Maintained Equipment for front line troops. Just because some may have
played no active role in front line combat, does not mean that they
were not (there) making a contribution.
You think of a Militia as men in uniform. I put to you that 99
percent of the Militia which defended this country had NO uniforms at
all. They wore what ever they had in the way of clothing and equipped
themselves with what ever they could buy or beg from others. What
little organization came into play was developed as situations
occurred. Much of the training was done (on the job) by placing
experienced fighters along side the inexperienced. It was a learn as
you go type of situation for many, many years.
The Military has a very long history of pumping out troops in minimum
time when a war it in progress. In my case, in 1965, I was moved
through basic training in five weeks, shot through technical training
in six weeks (12 hours a day, 6 days a week) and hit my first duty
station twelve weeks after being signed up. (they gave me an entire 7
days leave, after technical school).
Continuation and advanced training was all (On The Job). That's the
way it works now, and that's about how it worked then. However, back
then, my guess would be that it was done in a matter of days, not
weeks.
You, Ray, are fond of Hamilton's work. Hamilton was a trained combat
officer. He was used to working with both professional (trained)
troops and Civilian Militia. His writing reflects his "objections" to
the "warm body" Militia, but he still acknowledge the necessity of
having them available (trained or not). I would be willing to bet a
buck to a donut that AGE and experience were not big factors in his
mind when faced with a do or die situation. THAT, is what WAR is all
about!
The 2nd Amendment says NOTHING about signing up for a Militia. It has
NO requirements listed for RKBA. It only acknowledges one FACT (the
necessity for a Militia). It places that responsibility on the PEOPLE.
Our own American History tell us that THAT is the way it worked; not
only on paper, but also in practice.
Mike Eglestone
---------------
Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety. Nor, are they
likely to end up with either.
They say that insanity is relative. When I consider MY relatives, I
have to admit that it's more than likely true.
RAY
RR: Good post. First, I don't think of militia
ONLY as men in uniforms. I DO think of
well-regulated militia as people who've been
physically enrolled and in training.
Next, the age thing. I agree with you that
in wartime, age limitations were sometimes waved
for militia service. I suspect the rule of thumb
then was all able-bodied people. However, this
just confirms my contention that the founding
fathers thought of "the people" of the 2nd
Amendment as those in well-regulated militias.
Finally, I didn't see many people serving the
armed forces over the age of 50 when I was in
service (era of the Vietnam War), and the few that
were around that age were the lifers, about to
retire (as you did yourself). (a coincidence, but
we both entered service the same year, 1965. I
did my basic at Ft. Jackson and advanced at Ft.
Harrison.)
The last war when older persons served in
anything close to what could be called a militia
was WWII, a sort of volunteer home guard that was
called various names, the Coast Guard Reserve or
the Alaskan Territorial Guard, etc. Some did
bring their own guns, but unlike in the Uniform
Militia Act, they were not required to do so. The
Federal Government was required to supply the
guns, and did. Hell, in Texas, the Feds even
supplied the horses for them to ride on during
patrols down the coast looking for U-boats.
("Guardians of the Sea" by Johnson; "The Tundra
War," by Marston)
The point is that even when your most basic
'rush to arms' militias were formed in this
century, even at the height of the threat of
foreign invasion, they still did not need nor were
required to use their private arms. The 2nd
Amendment was of no use, even then.
>ME: You, Ray, are fond of Hamilton's work.
RR: Actually I only quote Hamilton because
Federalist #29 defined a 'well-regulated militia'
in the sense of its use in his day. If other
founding fathers had defined the term, I would
have quoted them.
> ME: Hamilton was a trained combat
> officer. He was used to working with both professional (trained)
> troops and Civilian Militia. His writing reflects his "objections" to
> the "warm body" Militia, but he still acknowledge the necessity of
> having them available (trained or not). I would be willing to bet a
> buck to a donut that AGE and experience were not big factors in his
> mind when faced with a do or die situation. THAT, is what WAR is all
> about!
RR: Hamilton's 'warm body' militia was not his
'well regulated' militia. Thus, it is irrelevant
to our discussions about the 2nAm.
>ME: The 2nd Amendment says NOTHING about signing up for a Militia. It has
> NO requirements listed for RKBA. It only acknowledges one FACT (the
> necessity for a Militia). It places that responsibility on the PEOPLE.
> Our own American History tell us that THAT is the way it worked; not
> only on paper, but also in practice.
RR: Don't have the foggiest idea what you're
talking about here. The responsibility for the
'militia' was placed on governments to form and
train that militia, and to those of a certain age,
sex and race to buy a weapons kit to use during
that training (UMA '92). You are correct that the
2nAm doesn't specify this... but the same Founding
Fathers that wrote and passed the 2nAm were the
ones who made up the rules (UMA). It is
inconceivable that they meant for the 2nAm to
apply to anything other than a uniform, trained,
universal militia composed of free white males.
M. Eglestone
> RR: Actually I think the most effective deterrant
> to tyranny would be hydrogen bombs in our
> cellars. Does that mean I have a right to get
> one?
=================================================================
Seldom do people consider the right to resist as being a right to
destroy themselves and their families along with the (identified)
enemy or attacker. The idea behind self defense and resistance is to
"survive" the enemy, not join him in death!
I can't recall EVER feeling a need to give my life for my country,
and I served for 26 years in the Military. My inclination was to live
for a very long time while making the other person forfeit his life
for HIS country. In a combat situation, the ONLY thing you worry about
is your own survival as it pertains to the success of the Mission.
Dead men are fairly useless in a war. Everyone takes care of number
ONE first, the result is that you end up with a LIVE fighting unit
rather than a field full of dead bodies.
Ray, your efforts to tie Militia Duty to the 2nd Amendment have been
shot down so many times that it's not funny. No requirement exists for
Militia duty and RKBA. It just flat isn't there. The Amendment
acknowledges the necessity for a Militia. It also places that
responsibility ON the PEOPLE. That's all the 2nd Amendment implies.
That is all it has ever implied. The 2nd Amendment is MORE about
responsibility than it is about RIGHTS. It acknowledges a RIGHT of the
PEOPLE and at the same time it charges the PEOPLE to assume a heavy
load of responsibility towards the security of the State and the
Nation. That responsibility "exists" with or without a "Well Regulated
Militia." It exists as a "Mandate" upon the PEOPLE as long as the 2nd
Amendment is still LAW.
Since I HAVE a responsibility (BY LAW) to keep and bear Arms, that is
exactly what I shall do. I have a tendency to take these matters
seriously.
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<3698AE2D...@Interaccess.com>...
New conditions?
Physically enrolled? Where exactly does the 2nd, or any founding father
state that physical enrollment is necessary?
Further physical enrollment is irrelevant since you are already enrolled
under Title 10 Chapter 13 of the US Code of Law. A physical enrollment
would be redundant.
> Next, the age thing. I agree with you that
> in wartime, age limitations were sometimes waved
> for militia service.
IOW you can't support your contention about age then?
> I suspect the rule of thumb
> then was all able-bodied people.
Hmmm. Would that be anything like "a general policy"?
Ray, doesn't understand how "general policy" can't be universal.
> However, this
> just confirms my contention that the founding
> fathers thought of "the people" of the 2nd
> Amendment as those in well-regulated militias.
Fine, now WHAT did they consider a well regulated militia?
And how does this apply to a right of the people?
> Finally, I didn't see many people serving the
> armed forces over the age of 50 when I was in
> service (era of the Vietnam War), and the few that
> were around that age were the lifers, about to
> retire (as you did yourself). (a coincidence, but
> we both entered service the same year, 1965. I
> did my basic at Ft. Jackson and advanced at Ft.
> Harrison.)
But you did see some. That is enough to show you that it can and does
occur.
> The last war when older persons served in
> anything close to what could be called a militia
> was WWII, a sort of volunteer home guard that was
> called various names, the Coast Guard Reserve or
> the Alaskan Territorial Guard, etc. Some did
> bring their own guns, but unlike in the Uniform
> Militia Act, they were not required to do so.
I see, so only that which is mandatory is protected. The government can not
disarm those that it requires to bear arms......
Ray, do you even think about what you're saying?
> The
> Federal Government was required to supply the
> guns, and did.
Bzzzzz. Correction, they CHOSE to supply arms, and entirely different
situation than that they were REQUIRED to supply arms.
> Hell, in Texas, the Feds even
> supplied the horses for them to ride on during
> patrols down the coast looking for U-boats.
> ("Guardians of the Sea" by Johnson; "The Tundra
> War," by Marston)
> The point is that even when your most basic
> 'rush to arms' militias were formed in this
> century, even at the height of the threat of
> foreign invasion, they still did not need nor were
> required to use their private arms. The 2nd
> Amendment was of no use, even then.
"Some brought their own arms", so how can you now determine that this was
not necessary?
Notice Ray's idea of a right, it only exists after it become necessary or
is mandated as required by the government. Hence you have no right until
you are being killed or the government mandates you to bear arms.
> >ME: You, Ray, are fond of Hamilton's work.
>
> RR: Actually I only quote Hamilton because
> Federalist #29 defined a 'well-regulated militia'
> in the sense of its use in his day.
Wrong, it defines only what Hamilton thought was required for a
well-regulated militia.
Further you IGNORE the clear statement that for the general population the
best that could be hoped for were to have them properly armed, never seeing
any connection between this and a declaration that the people have the
right to keep and bear arms.
Nope, instead you see only a select militia, which was supported by
Hamilton, and TURNED DOWN.
> If other
> founding fathers had defined the term, I would
> have quoted them.
IOW you have no idea is this term was defined by Hamilton the same as the
sense of its use at the time, you merely make the ASSUMPTION that
Hamilton's opinion was the popular one...........except we know his
opinions on the issue were rejected.........so much for being the source of
the popular meaning.
> > ME: Hamilton was a trained combat
> > officer. He was used to working with both professional (trained)
> > troops and Civilian Militia. His writing reflects his "objections" to
> > the "warm body" Militia, but he still acknowledge the necessity of
> > having them available (trained or not). I would be willing to bet a
> > buck to a donut that AGE and experience were not big factors in his
> > mind when faced with a do or die situation. THAT, is what WAR is all
> > about!
>
> RR: Hamilton's 'warm body' militia was not his
> 'well regulated' militia. Thus, it is irrelevant
> to our discussions about the 2nAm.
Who cares, since Hamilton's ideas were rejected. What was accepted was a
"warm body militia", which Ray ignores.
> >ME: The 2nd Amendment says NOTHING about signing up for a Militia. It
has
> > NO requirements listed for RKBA. It only acknowledges one FACT (the
> > necessity for a Militia). It places that responsibility on the PEOPLE.
> > Our own American History tell us that THAT is the way it worked; not
> > only on paper, but also in practice.
>
> RR: Don't have the foggiest idea what you're
> talking about here. The responsibility for the
> 'militia' was placed on governments to form and
> train that militia, and to those of a certain age,
> sex and race to buy a weapons kit to use during
> that training (UMA '92).
Which when repealed allowed the disarmament of that militia, see what
happens when the exercise of a right is dependent upon government
interaction? All they need do is ignore or disband the militia, and *POOF*
suddenly your protection (according to Ray) vanishes. So much for acting as
a prohibition on federal government.
> You are correct that the
> 2nAm doesn't specify this...
Then it's not law.
>but the same Founding
> Fathers that wrote and passed the 2nAm were the
> ones who made up the rules (UMA).
Sorry, but no. There were many other founding fathers involved in the
passage of the 2nd. Those in the state legislatures for one.
Further I fail to see how an exercise of organizing the militia would allow
the government to suddenly be able to define who and how the militia's
right was recognized. Could not the government as simply say that all left
handed red headed males born on Christmas night are the militia? Then
disarm EVERYONE else?
Nope the exercise of the Article 1 power, in no manner defines the scope of
the right protected in the 2nd.
> It is
> inconceivable that they meant for the 2nAm to
> apply to anything other than a uniform, trained,
> universal militia composed of free white males.
It is only inconceivable to you, the founding fathers stated quite clearly
a number of times that the right does apply to the general population.
Of course Ray, will ignore these comments by the founding fathers as
inconceivable to the general sense of intent, while granting a solitary
quotation by Hamilton as the gospel in meaning. Hypocrisy? I think so.
RAY
> Ray, your efforts to tie Militia Duty to the 2nd Amendment have been
> shot down so many times that it's not funny.
RR: The Supreme Court Agrees with Me.
M. Eglestone
=============================================================
First off, Ray, you were never IN the Vietnam War, so you don't have
any idea about the ages of the people who were there. I was all over
SEA. I believe I have a better handle on it than you do. Keep one
thing in mind. The Nam war was a DRAFT war for the most part. Age
rules applied in many areas. However, many formerly retired people
were called back into service, and many of the Reserves were
activated. A decent percent of the Reserves ARE over the age of 50.
They can't retire from that service until they get enough points, or
reach the age of 65. The upper limit on the National Guard is the
same. There is NO upper age limits on Medical Personnel. None what so
ever.
It makes NO difference when the last Militia was called into active
duty. The fact remains that the "option" to call up a Militia still
exists. We still have a highly effective Civil Defense Force all
across this nation. Although they're not trained to arms, they can be
use in that capacity if necessary. There are no rules against Civil
Defense Forces being armed. They just generally don't require weapons
because they work hand in hand with existing police forces in all the
major cities.
You need to ask yourself one question, "Could I grab a weapon and
answer a Call to Arms" if it became necessary?" If the answer is NO,
then you are NOT living up to your obligations under the 2nd Amendment
of the United States.
Ray, I can't think of any requirement for me to own a gun today.
However, I have no idea what tomorrow might bring. If I wait until
tomorrow to buy one, it might be too late. Better safe than sorry.
After all, I have "Life Insurance" and I'm not planning to die anytime
in the near future. But, shit happens!!
M. Eglestone
> ME: Ray, your efforts to tie Militia Duty to the 2nd Amendment have been
> > shot down so many times that it's not funny.
================================================
> RR: The Supreme Court Agrees with Me.
=============================================
ME: Only in your dreams, Ray. Only in your dreams!
John Simutis
: M. Eglestone wrote:
:>
:> RAY wrote:
:>
:> > Constitution that specifies who belongs in a
:> > militia. Article one leaves that up to Congress.
:> > And the 2nd Amendment only says that
:> > militiapersons must be well-regulated. I think
:> > you have been Reading a different Constitution
:> > than the rest of us.
:> ===================================================================
:>
:> Excuse ME, but where does the word "MUST" exist in the 2nd Amendment.
:> It doesn't say a single thing about about a Militia Person who MUST be
:> well regulated.
:>
:> I think you are confusing Article 1, Section 8 with the Amendment TO
:> that Article which is commonly know as the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd
:> Amendment alters Article 1, Section 8, and specifies that the PEOPLE
:> are the Militia by giving them the Right to keep and bear Arms. It
:> also says that the RIGHT shall not be infringed.
: RR: Correction: The 2nd Am specifies that the
: PEOPLE are the WELL REGULATED militia.
: Thus, if you are not in a well regulated militia
: right now, you are not among the 'people' of the
: 2nd Amendment.
Really? Where? It surely does not say 'the people in the militia'.
:> The Militia Laws which were established in 1792 were built upon the
:> FACT that the PEOPLE had the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms. The entire
:> premise of that LAW was contingent upon the fact that the people would
:> come forward and serve in an established Militia if necessary for the
:> defense of the State or the Nation. RKBA within, or external to,
:> Militia Duty was a fact of life in this country. It could BE no other
:> way.
: RR: There is nothing in the Militia Laws of 1792
: which indicates any 'external' RKBA outside of
: Militia Duty.
And you have never provided evidence that there was NOT a general RKBA.
[ snip ]
: RR: You bring up an interesting point, that
: Congress eventually helped supply arms to 'the
: people.' The question, however, is whether the
: reason for the arms was ONLY for militia duty, or
: for personal reasons as well.
: I think if you will survey the record, you
: will find that the arms given out by government
: were meant to go ONLY for militia duty. There is
: nothing in the Congressional record to the effect
: that government guns were being distributed to
: shoot chickens.
Their weapons, their conditions - see Switzerland.
: Thus, Congress did not feel that
: there was any RKBA external to the militia.
Thus? Extremely big assumption - where is your evidence?
:> Ray, there were NO laws then which prohibited a person from using a
:> Federally Provided Arm for personal use. It was expected that a person
:> would use those arms to defend himself and his family when not in the
:> service of the State or the Nation. A DEAD Militia person is hardly of
:> use to anybody. Some chose to take Government Arms, some chose to use
:> their own personal Arms. In either case, those ARMS were freely used
:> in both a private and official capacity. No LAW prohibited this
:> activity. Again, a precedent WAS established.
: RR: Except it was still perfectly legal for local
: authorities to take those same arms away from 'the
: people' for whatever local legislative reason
: existed. The only purpose which the local
: authorities could not touch was the purpose of
: using those arms in the militia.
: This again proves that the purpose of those
: public arms was a public purpose.. use in a
: government sponsored militia.
Again, so long as the government retained ownership, their rules for use
apply. You have not supported any claim that private ownership was in any
way conditioned on militia service/use/utility.
--
John Simutis sim...@ccnet.com
122 degrees West Longitude, 38 degrees North Latitude
-- unless the North American Plate slips bigtime ...
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<3699020A...@Interaccess.com>...
> M. Eglestone wrote:
>
> > Ray, your efforts to tie Militia Duty to the 2nd Amendment have been
> > shot down so many times that it's not funny.
>
> RR: The Supreme Court Agrees with Me.
Students: This is what is known as an appeal to authority. This is
considered to be an invalid debate argument, used by debaters that can't
support their own arguments by the presentation of facts, but try to
support their argument(s) by pointing to acceptance by others, who may be
just as wrong or using invalid data as the debater appealing for support
for this authority.
However, to answer your particular claim, in US vs. Miller the Supreme
Court demonstrated that individuals could claim protection under the 2nd,
and their connection to, or lack of any such connection to, any recognized
militia is totally and utterly irrelevant to claiming this protection.
Further the Supreme Court stated that even if they were to ignore the
existence of the 2nd, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would
still exist.
RAY
> First off, Ray, you were never IN the Vietnam War, so you don't have
> any idea about the ages of the people who were there. I was all over
> SEA. I believe I have a better handle on it than you do. Keep one
> thing in mind. The Nam war was a DRAFT war for the most part. Age
> rules applied in many areas. However, many formerly retired people
> were called back into service, and many of the Reserves were
> activated. A decent percent of the Reserves ARE over the age of 50.
> They can't retire from that service until they get enough points, or
> reach the age of 65. The upper limit on the National Guard is the
> same. There is NO upper age limits on Medical Personnel. None what so
> ever.
RR: Eglestone, you're attempting to deceive us.
First you claim that YOU know more about the ages
of those in the Vietnam War that I know, and then
you claim that many reserves were called, and then
you say that many reserves "are" over the age of
50.
Your intention is to mislead the readers into
believing that many reserves over the age of 50
were called back to duty to serve in the Vietnam
War.
That's just BS. If you can't be honest, just
don't post anything.
And frankly, my service in Germany would be no
more nor less associated with older troops than in
Vietnam. So stuff your air force mechanic's
'vietnam' campaign ribbon where the sun don't
shine. I probably saw more 'combat' on the
Kaiserstrasse than you saw in the war.
Sam A. Kersh
>RR: Correction: The 2nd Am specifies that the
>PEOPLE are the WELL REGULATED militia.
>Thus, if you are not in a well regulated militia
>right now, you are not among the 'people' of the
>2nd Amendment.
Wrong on both counts, RAY... and US v Miller doesn't say that either.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
LEAA Life
TSRA L-111738
JPFO
Training is Sergeant's Business
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/
===============================================================
talk.politics.guns' resident hypocrite admits to using a gun
by proxy
"So for me and my family, all we need for protection
against crime is some basic knowledge of where not to
travel, and how to travel there if we have to. For
instance, I've had to go into the Cabrini and Taylor Homes
in Chicago a number of times, but because they are
high-crime areas, I go in daylight, to meet someone I know,
with a bodyguard."
Robert L. Ray aka ki...@interaccess.com
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
Info at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
RAY wrote:
Thus, Congress did not feel that
there was any RKBA external to the militia.
DY: The Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was added to
the Constitution to protect the people's rights against Congress violating
them, so it does not matter what Congress felt about the right of the
people to keep and bear arms once the Second Amendment became part of the
Constitution. This is one of the reasons why a bill of rights, like
England's - merely a law which could be overturned by subsequent Congresses
- was not acceptable to antifederalists. An offer to support a bill of
right based upon law and not part of the Constitution had been proposed
during the ratification era.
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
Info at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<3698AE2D...@Interaccess.com>...
RR: The responsibility for the
> 'militia' was placed on governments to form and
> train that militia, and to those of a certain age,
> sex and race to buy a weapons kit to use during
> that training (UMA '92). You are correct that the
> 2nAm doesn't specify this... but the same Founding
> Fathers that wrote and passed the 2nAm were the
> ones who made up the rules (UMA). It is
> inconceivable that they meant for the 2nAm to
> apply to anything other than a uniform, trained,
> universal militia composed of free white males.
DY: It is inconceivable that those who wanted the Second Amendment intended
for it to applly to anything other than the body of the people who were
capable of bearing arms, and this in spite of what the government might or
might not do under its militia powers. Protection for the right of the
people to have arms was proposed by the antifederalists during the
ratification of the Constitution. There were proposals in the Penn. and
Mass. Conventions, and proposals by the New Hamphire, Virginia, North
Carolina, and New York Conventions prior to the first Congress.
It was not Federalists who pushed the Bill of Rights until after the
Constitution was ratified. Madison decided to help add a Bill of Rights to
the Constitution in order to get elected to the First Congress, and because
Jefferson convinced him it would be a good idea.
The First Congress wrote the Second Amendment, basing what they wrote upon
what the antifederalists had offered for a Bill of Rights. The First
Congress proposed the Second Amendment to the states, which ratified it as
part of the Constitution.
But, the UMA as RAY refers to it, was written by the Second Congress. It is
not a part of the Constitution.
RAY claims that the same Founding Fathers wrote both the Second Amendment
and the UMA. I believe that RAY and his gun control friends have argued on
TPG that the Founding Fathers were those, and those only, who wrote the
Constitution. How many of those were members of the SECOND Congress which
wrote the UMA, and what percentage of the Congress did they comprise?
RAY
> RR: The responsibility for the
> > 'militia' was placed on governments to form and
> > train that militia, and to those of a certain age,
> > sex and race to buy a weapons kit to use during
> > that training (UMA '92). You are correct that the
> > 2nAm doesn't specify this... but the same Founding
> > Fathers that wrote and passed the 2nAm were the
> > ones who made up the rules (UMA). It is
> > inconceivable that they meant for the 2nAm to
> > apply to anything other than a uniform, trained,
> > universal militia composed of free white males.
>
> DY: It is inconceivable that those who wanted the Second Amendment intended
> for it to applly to anything other than the body of the people who were
> capable of bearing arms,
RR: Back then, of course, your 'body of the
people' was the same group as my trained militia
of free white males. The UMA required all those
'people' capable of
bearing arms to actually be training in a militia,
which had been the standard also in colonial
times. It was like an ongoing, universal 'draft,'
except for militia duty instead of army duty.
>DY: Protection for the right of the
> people to have arms was proposed by the antifederalists during the
> ratification of the Constitution. There were proposals in the Penn. and
> Mass. Conventions, and proposals by the New Hamphire, Virginia, North
> Carolina, and New York Conventions prior to the first Congress.
RR: One person can make a proposal. That means
nothing. What matters is what is passed by the
body of a convention. And only the New Hampshire
Convention made such a suggestion official. All
other state conventions turned down an independent
right to arms.
> RAY claims that the same Founding Fathers wrote both the Second Amendment
> and the UMA. I believe that RAY and his gun control friends have argued on
> TPG that the Founding Fathers were those, and those only, who wrote the
> Constitution. How many of those were members of the SECOND Congress which
> wrote the UMA, and what percentage of the Congress did they comprise?
RR: I'll look it up. But I sincerely doubt that
the founding fathers who were part of the first
Congress somehow vanished just two years later for
the 2nd Congress. In fact, we can see many of the
familiar FF names in the debate of the 2nd
Congress over the UMA.
Lock N Load
>Lock N Load wrote:
>
>> >>LL: Also we still retain our right to individual self-defense.
>> >> Political Writings of John Locke (ISBN 0-451-62861-6)
>> >> The Second Treatise of Government
>> >> Of Political or Civil Society
>> >> "...whererver any persons are who have not such an authority to appeal to for the decision of any
>> >> difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature.....For wherever any
>> >> two men are who have no standing rule and common judge to appeal to on earth for the determination
>> >> of controversies of right betwixt them, there they are still in the state of nature, and under all
>> >> the inconveniences of it..."
>> >
>> >RR: Agreed on the natural law right of individual
>> >self-defense (self preservation being the natural
>> >inclination of our species).
>> > But of course only radical gunners believe
>> >that guns are part of that right. Locke's Nature
>> >Boy was never pictured with an AK-47 slung over
>> >his shoulder. Fig leaf, yes. Flak jacket, no.
>>
>>LL I think Mr. Locke was familiar with weapons other then sticks and
>> stones.
>
>RR: The right to self-defense was merely the right
>to resist.
Not just the right "right to resist" but the right to be judge, jury,
and executioner, since the only lawful use of self-defense would be in
a time of, a lack of civil protection, ie... no LEOs around to step in
and stop the bad guy intent on violence.
>This itself was revolutionary after
>centuries of Feudal law, which forbid large
>segments of the population from having any right
>to resist the nobility. Even in the 18th century
>it still had not been applied to slaves or wives
>(vis a vis their husbands). But the right to
>resist did not imply any particular method of
>resistance. That was left to the rules of
>society.
All true, and I put it to you that in today’s world the firearm is the
best tool to use for self and or civil defense. The firearm *IS* the
great equalizer. In feudal times the physically weak had to depend on
the strong for their defense, and thereby were obligated to, and at
the mercy of the physically stronger persons whim. In modern times
with the use of firearms a physically weak person can provide for
their own defense, and thereby not be obligated to nor at the mercy of
anyone who may be physically stronger.
>>LL: But the core message is that we do have the right to self-defense
>> (also if you read more of Locke’s Second Treatise you will find that
>> armed resistance to tyranny is also a right), and in this day and age,
>> I believe that firearms are the best tool for self-defense and/or
>> resistance to tyranny.'
>
>RR: Armed resistance to tyranny was indeed a
>right, but it was considered to be a collective
>right, and guns were not mentioned. As you said,
>Locke would have known of guns in his day. So if
>he had meant for there to be a right to resist
>with guns, he certainly would have said so.
I don't believe Mr. Locke was limiting himself to any particular
methods of self-defense. He was just illustrating that people do have
certain rights that are inherent to ourselves.
>>LL: What do you think would be the better tool for resistance to tyranny,
>> a bolt action hunting rifle or an AK-47?
>
>RR: Actually I think the most effective deterrant
>to tyranny would be hydrogen bombs in our
>cellars. Does that mean I have a right to get
>one?
I thought you wanted to discuss reasonable and/or practical means of
"gun control"
>> LL: Just to let you know. Resorting to the use of arms for either self or
>> civil defense is always a *last* resort. We should maintain the Right
>> to Keep and Bear Arms, and we should preserve it for our children,
>> grandchildren...ect.
>
>RR: Agreed. I have never advocated repeal of the
>2nd Amendment. It's a dead issue right now, but
>you never know when it might come in handy.
Great, then help us to maintain it for future generations of
Americans. But you do have to understand that for it to be of any
meaning it has to be able to be implemented in a practical way. In my
opinion outlawing and/or banning weapons that might have a use in
personal defense (inexpensive handguns) and/or use in civil defense
(AK-47s) Is not a practical option for maintaining the RIGHT to
self-defense and/or civil defense.
>
Don't tow the party line
Think for yourself
Do not be afraid
Lock N Load
Sam A. Kersh
>M. Eglestone wrote:
>
>> First off, Ray, you were never IN the Vietnam War, so you don't have
>> any idea about the ages of the people who were there. I was all over
>> SEA. I believe I have a better handle on it than you do. Keep one
>> thing in mind. The Nam war was a DRAFT war for the most part. Age
>> rules applied in many areas. However, many formerly retired people
>> were called back into service, and many of the Reserves were
>> activated. A decent percent of the Reserves ARE over the age of 50.
>> They can't retire from that service until they get enough points, or
>> reach the age of 65. The upper limit on the National Guard is the
>> same. There is NO upper age limits on Medical Personnel. None what so
>> ever.
>
>RR: Eglestone, you're attempting to deceive us.
>First you claim that YOU know more about the ages
>of those in the Vietnam War that I know, and then
>you claim that many reserves were called, and then
>you say that many reserves "are" over the age of
>50.
> Your intention is to mislead the readers into
>believing that many reserves over the age of 50
>were called back to duty to serve in the Vietnam
>War.
Once again, RAY proves he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Retreads were WWII and Korea era vets. Helicopter pilots were often
warrant officers, that is, senior enlisted who, because of their
knowledge and physical abilities, were able to make it through flight
training at Mother Rucker and Ft. Wolters, TX. Most senior officers
and NCOs in both the NG and reserve are/were in their late 40s and early
50s.
But what can you expect from a garri-trooper like RAY? Hell, he's been
asked about 50 times what his MOS was and he still refuses to answer or
never had one....
> That's just BS. If you can't be honest, just
>don't post anything.
> And frankly, my service in Germany would be no
>more nor less associated with older troops than in
>Vietnam. So stuff your air force mechanic's
>'vietnam' campaign ribbon where the sun don't
>shine. I probably saw more 'combat' on the
>Kaiserstrasse than you saw in the war.
RAY was part of the Biergarten Brigade. He doesn't know where Fulda Gap
is much less which American units had/have responsibility (Hello,
Phantom Warrior).
Sam A. Kersh
>M. Eglestone wrote:
>
>> Ray, your efforts to tie Militia Duty to the 2nd Amendment have been
>> shot down so many times that it's not funny.
>
>RR: The Supreme Court Agrees with Me.
Since when? U.S. v Miller, which you often cite, does not make a
requirement of military duty. The SCOTUS questioned the military value
of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length. The court was
honest enough to say it did not have enough evidence one way or the
other and returned the case to Judge Ragon's court for further findings.
At that point, the AUSA offered Frank Layton a lesser plea for time
served so as not to lose a second time.
In its opinion, the SCOTUS did point to State v Amyette which did cite
an individual right to keep and bear arms... RAY himself is fully aware
the this decision stated "Every free ... man ...." --- not some nebulous
collective as RAY would have all believe.
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369A2115...@Interaccess.com>...
> David E. Young wrote:
>
> > RR: The responsibility for the
> > > 'militia' was placed on governments to form and
> > > train that militia, and to those of a certain age,
> > > sex and race to buy a weapons kit to use during
> > > that training (UMA '92). You are correct that the
> > > 2nAm doesn't specify this... but the same Founding
> > > Fathers that wrote and passed the 2nAm were the
> > > ones who made up the rules (UMA). It is
> > > inconceivable that they meant for the 2nAm to
> > > apply to anything other than a uniform, trained,
> > > universal militia composed of free white males.
> >
> > DY: It is inconceivable that those who wanted the Second Amendment
intended
> > for it to applly to anything other than the body of the people who were
> > capable of bearing arms,
>
> RR: Back then, of course, your 'body of the
> people' was the same group as my trained militia
> of free white males.
However, we know this isn't true. Since the body of the people included
those other than property owning free white males.
> The UMA required all those
> 'people' capable of
> bearing arms to actually be training in a militia,
> which had been the standard also in colonial
> times. It was like an ongoing, universal 'draft,'
> except for militia duty instead of army duty.
So let's see, the 2nd protected the rights of a body of people that did not
yet exist. Hint: Ray just told us that they did not exist until the passage
of UMA.
So tell us Ray, between the ratification of the 2nd, and the passage of
UMA, to whom did this protection apply? Do you really mean to tell us that
the founding fathers would pass this Amendment WITHOUT SOMEONE UPON WHOM TO
CONFER THE PROTECTION????
Further, this also implies that the Congress could disarm the militia to be
protected in the 2nd by the simple action of refusing to recognize anyone.
Finally, let me point out that we are defining the militia based upon the
passage of a federal law (which for the Constitutionally challenged can NOT
alter, change, modify, or define the terms in the Constitution. ) to which
this protection would exist. IOW the protection exists ONLY FOR THOSE
PEOPLE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHOSE TO PERMIT ARMS, AND THEN FOR ONLY AS
LONG AS THEY CHOSE TO ALLOW IT. (ref. Ray's remarks about the disbanding
of the well regulated militia following the repeal of UMA '97)
So tell us Ray, what exactly does this accomplish? You declare a protection
against federal infringement then leave the application of the protection
solely up to the body which is to be prohibited from action on that
protection. Seems a strange circular piece of legislation to me, and the
Founding Fathers have demonstrated they were smarter than to pass something
to do what you imply.
> >DY: Protection for the right of the
> > people to have arms was proposed by the antifederalists during the
> > ratification of the Constitution. There were proposals in the Penn. and
> > Mass. Conventions, and proposals by the New Hamphire, Virginia, North
> > Carolina, and New York Conventions prior to the first Congress.
>
> RR: One person can make a proposal.
Like Hamilton?
> That means
> nothing.
Like his comments about what a well regulated militia is?
> What matters is what is passed by the
> body of a convention.
You mean like the 2nd?
> And only the New Hampshire
> Convention made such a suggestion official. All
> other state conventions turned down an independent
> right to arms.
Sorry, but I disagree. Virginia which has an almost identical statement in
it's state Constitution (which BTW protects an individual right) did not
turn down an independent right to arms, in fact if memory serves the 2nd
was ratified by the states, not turned down.......
> > RAY claims that the same Founding Fathers wrote both the Second
Amendment
> > and the UMA. I believe that RAY and his gun control friends have argued
on
> > TPG that the Founding Fathers were those, and those only, who wrote
the
> > Constitution. How many of those were members of the SECOND Congress
which
> > wrote the UMA, and what percentage of the Congress did they comprise?
>
> RR: I'll look it up. But I sincerely doubt that
> the founding fathers who were part of the first
> Congress somehow vanished just two years later for
> the 2nd Congress.
Ray, please don't forget about all those founding fathers that RATIFIED
this proposal. They certainly were involved in it's passage, are you trying
to tell us all those members of the state legislatures were suddenly
elected to congress?
> In fact, we can see many of the
> familiar FF names in the debate of the 2nd
> Congress over the UMA.
Many, but not all. Nor would even a complete ruling by ALL of the members
of the 1st Congress define the 2nd Amendment at the time of the 2nd. Since
at the time of the 2nd the meaning was fixed. It was not established by the
2nd Congress, but by the 1st. Finally, an exercise of federal power under
Article 1, in no manner defines the extent of the 2nd.
RD Thompson
>M. Eglestone wrote:
>> The Militia Laws which were established in 1792 were built upon the
>> FACT that the PEOPLE had the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms. The entire
>> premise of that LAW was contingent upon the fact that the people would
>> come forward and serve in an established Militia if necessary for the
>> defense of the State or the Nation. RKBA within, or external to,
>> Militia Duty was a fact of life in this country. It could BE no other
>> way.
>
>RR: There is nothing in the Militia Laws of 1792
>which indicates any 'external' RKBA outside of
>Militia Duty.
That is because it exists *without* the Militia Laws of 1792. Militia
duty is only *one* part of RKBA.
>> The RIGHT of the people to Keep and Bear Arms still exists, Ray. It
>> was recognized long before the writing of the Constitution, and it was
>> again recognized IN the Constitution.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with a person being signed up, or well
>> regulated, in any Militia of any kind. Men with their personal ARMS,
>> in defense of themselves and the nation.
>>
>> Acting as private citizens, or as a group of concerned citizens with
>> a common cause, it makes no difference one way or the other.
>> Organized, or unorganized, RKBA exists in either case. History set the
>> precedent. It has stood for a long, long time.
>>
>> Why did congress make provisions to ARM the Militia. Simple Fact: The
>> PEOPLE didn't have enough guns to get the job done or, the States
>> couldn't afford to pay for them. Hence, the Federal Government bought
>> and paid for (and distributed) guns to the PEOPLE under Article 1,
>> Section 8 of the Constitution. However, this took place many years
>> AFTER both the original Constitution and the 2nd Amendment were
>> written. Where do you suppose those arms came from between events?
>> Perhaps from the PEOPLE with RKBA?
>
>RR: You bring up an interesting point, that
>Congress eventually helped supply arms to 'the
>people.' The question, however, is whether the
>reason for the arms was ONLY for militia duty, or
>for personal reasons as well.
It would be only for militia or military duty. Citizens are expected
to provide their own personal arms for personal RKBA.
> I think if you will survey the record, you
>will find that the arms given out by government
>were meant to go ONLY for militia duty.
Correct.
>There is
>nothing in the Congressional record to the effect
>that government guns were being distributed to
>shoot chickens. Thus, Congress did not feel that
>there was any RKBA external to the militia.
Incorrect. Congress obviously felt that any weapons that you used
outside of military duty would be personal weapons provided by
yourself. It is in the same order where if you are in an armored
division, the army will supply you with a tank, but if you wish to go
off base and pick up girls, you will have to provide your own
transportation.
M. Eglestone
> >RR: Eglestone, you're attempting to deceive us.
> >First you claim that YOU know more about the ages
> >of those in the Vietnam War that I know, and then
> >you claim that many reserves were called, and then
> >you say that many reserves "are" over the age of
> >50.
> > Your intention is to mislead the readers into
> >believing that many reserves over the age of 50
> >were called back to duty to serve in the Vietnam
> >War.
====================================================================
> SK: Once again, RAY proves he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> Retreads were WWII and Korea era vets. Helicopter pilots were often
> warrant officers, that is, senior enlisted who, because of their
> knowledge and physical abilities, were able to make it through flight
> training at Mother Rucker and Ft. Wolters, TX. Most senior officers
> and NCOs in both the NG and reserve are/were in their late 40s and early
> 50s.
>
> But what can you expect from a garri-trooper like RAY? Hell, he's been
> asked about 50 times what his MOS was and he still refuses to answer or
> never had one....
======================================================================
ME: Ray went to the Clinton School of Truth and Honesty. It's to be
expected, Sam.
You might recall when I told him of my friend (Doctor Russell, a U.S.
Resident) who maintained his Jamaican Citizenship so he would be able
to use his passport with greater ease when he visited many 3rd world
nations in support of the U.N. (Save the Children) foundation. He
accused that good doctor of administering to dictators and traitors
for personal gain.
It is indeed interesting that RAY finds evil and untruth in all areas
except those which concern the President of this Country. If he needs
evil in his life, he needs to look no further than the White House.
I deal in truth for one reason only.. It's too damn hard to remember
a lie with any consistency. The truth however, never changes.
Frank Zember
>
>RR: "Press" and "Publication" were the same thing
>back then. If you 'published' anything, you
>automatically were exercising the liberty of the
>press. Care to try again? The same could be
>said today, with some hi-tech additions: If I put
>out a weekly neighborhood newsletter for free on
>my word processor, I become a member of the
>"press"
> The same thing if I publish my own book.
The points are:
First, sentence construction. As you "freedom-fighter" continually
use the narrower conditional statement to limit the operable statement
comprising the 2nd Amendment, proof of concurrent similar statements
should prove enlightening, and;
Second, limitation of rights ONLY by conditional statements. As the
pro-opressionists like yourself like to bastardize the intent of the
Founding Fathers, the challenge is to maintain your consistency and
show how this statement may be used to protect ONLY the free speech
rights of the established press.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms...The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves agtainst tyranny in government.
Mark
Bad News: We are stuck with one really lousy amendment which gives us the
highest murder rate in the world. Guns are no longer useful against
government, but great to kill each other.
--
sig: San Diego is a great city. I'd love to help you with information.
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:369A2115...@Interaccess.com...
>David E. Young wrote:
>
>> RR: The responsibility for the
>> > 'militia' was placed on governments to form and
>> > train that militia, and to those of a certain age,
>> > sex and race to buy a weapons kit to use during
>> > that training (UMA '92). You are correct that the
>> > 2nAm doesn't specify this... but the same Founding
>> > Fathers that wrote and passed the 2nAm were the
>> > ones who made up the rules (UMA). It is
>> > inconceivable that they meant for the 2nAm to
>> > apply to anything other than a uniform, trained,
>> > universal militia composed of free white males.
>>
>> DY: It is inconceivable that those who wanted the Second Amendment
intended
>> for it to applly to anything other than the body of the people who were
>> capable of bearing arms,
>
>RR: Back then, of course, your 'body of the
>people' was the same group as my trained militia
>of free white males. The UMA required all those
>'people' capable of
>bearing arms to actually be training in a militia,
>which had been the standard also in colonial
>times. It was like an ongoing, universal 'draft,'
>except for militia duty instead of army duty.
>
>>DY: Protection for the right of the
>> people to have arms was proposed by the antifederalists during the
>> ratification of the Constitution. There were proposals in the Penn. and
>> Mass. Conventions, and proposals by the New Hamphire, Virginia, North
>> Carolina, and New York Conventions prior to the first Congress.
>
>RR: One person can make a proposal. That means
>nothing. What matters is what is passed by the
>body of a convention. And only the New Hampshire
>Convention made such a suggestion official. All
>other state conventions turned down an independent
>right to arms.
>
>> RAY claims that the same Founding Fathers wrote both the Second Amendment
>> and the UMA. I believe that RAY and his gun control friends have argued
on
>> TPG that the Founding Fathers were those, and those only, who wrote the
>> Constitution. How many of those were members of the SECOND Congress which
>> wrote the UMA, and what percentage of the Congress did they comprise?
>
>RR: I'll look it up. But I sincerely doubt that
>the founding fathers who were part of the first
>Congress somehow vanished just two years later for
>the 2nd Congress. In fact, we can see many of the
RAY
> >RR: The right to self-defense was merely the right
> >to resist.
>
> and executioner, since the only lawful use of self-defense would be in
> a time of, a lack of civil protection, ie... no LEOs around to step in
> and stop the bad guy intent on violence.
RR: There were no LEOs per se, that's true. But
there were other forces at work to occasionally
deter nobles bent on violence. The bourgois was
on the rise, providing a base in towns and cities
where the common people could gain power (ie:
money), with which to influence not only competing
nobles, but also the King.. and hense the King's
men (soldiers or sheriffs or magistrates).
It was the beginnings of justice (tho today
we'd probably call it bribery) for the common man
outside of slavery, serfdom, blood feuds and
duals.
> >RR: This itself was revolutionary after
> >centuries of Feudal law, which forbid large
> >segments of the population from having any right
> >to resist the nobility. Even in the 18th century
> >it still had not been applied to slaves or wives
> >(vis a vis their husbands). But the right to
> >resist did not imply any particular method of
> >resistance. That was left to the rules of
> >society.
>
>LL: All true, and I put it to you that in today’s world the firearm is the
> best tool to use for self and or civil defense. The firearm *IS* the
> great equalizer. In feudal times the physically weak had to depend on
> the strong for their defense, and thereby were obligated to, and at
> the mercy of the physically stronger persons whim. In modern times
> with the use of firearms a physically weak person can provide for
> their own defense, and thereby not be obligated to nor at the mercy of
> anyone who may be physically stronger.
RR: There's nothing wrong with this logic, if you
can guarantee that the 'physically weak' don't
join the strong in using their guns for crime. It
is easy to view the population as ALL Good or ALL
Bad, but it is not realistic. Many people are not
career criminals, but they still engage in
arguments and fights which never would amount to
much, except if they happen to use a gun to settle
them.
And with the criminal uses of guns
outnumbering the defensive uses of guns by a ten
to one ratio (NCVS), it's obvious that a lot needs
to be done to get guns out of the hands of
criminals.
I don't see how arming non-criminals will
help get guns away from criminals. If I was a
criminal and I suspected my victim 'might' have a
gun, I'd want to make sure that I had a gun too,
and that I 'got the drop on' my victim first.
> >>LL: But the core message is that we do have the right to self-defense
> >> (also if you read more of Locke’s Second Treatise you will find that
> >> armed resistance to tyranny is also a right), and in this day and age,
> >> I believe that firearms are the best tool for self-defense and/or
> >> resistance to tyranny.'
> >
> >RR: Armed resistance to tyranny was indeed a
> >right, but it was considered to be a collective
> >right, and guns were not mentioned. As you said,
> >Locke would have known of guns in his day. So if
> >he had meant for there to be a right to resist
> >with guns, he certainly would have said so.
>
>LL: I don't believe Mr. Locke was limiting himself to any particular
> methods of self-defense. He was just illustrating that people do have
> certain rights that are inherent to ourselves.
RR: We agree. Locke was not stating a RKBA.
> >>LL: What do you think would be the better tool for resistance to tyranny,
> >> a bolt action hunting rifle or an AK-47?
> >
> >RR: Actually I think the most effective deterrant
> >to tyranny would be hydrogen bombs in our
> >cellars. Does that mean I have a right to get
> >one?
>
>LL: I thought you wanted to discuss reasonable and/or practical means of
> "gun control"
RR: I am. I was making the point that the type
of self-defense can and should be controlled by
society as a whole. You may agree with me that we
have no right to nuclear weapons in our cellers
because it would be more risky to society to have
them present than not have them present.
Likewise, I believe it's also more risky to
society to allow everyone, without regulation, to
have an AK-47 on the kitchen table.
All opinions on these matters have value, and
must be sorted out through the democratic
process. The people in our collective wisdom
should determine which policy is correct for
society.
> >> LL: Just to let you know. Resorting to the use of arms for either self or
> >> civil defense is always a *last* resort. We should maintain the Right
> >> to Keep and Bear Arms, and we should preserve it for our children,
> >> grandchildren...ect.
> >
> >RR: Agreed. I have never advocated repeal of the
> >2nd Amendment. It's a dead issue right now, but
> >you never know when it might come in handy.
>
>LL: Great, then help us to maintain it for future generations of
> Americans. But you do have to understand that for it to be of any
> meaning it has to be able to be implemented in a practical way. In my
> opinion outlawing and/or banning weapons that might have a use in
> personal defense (inexpensive handguns) and/or use in civil defense
> (AK-47s) Is not a practical option for maintaining the RIGHT to
> self-defense and/or civil defense.
RR: Those agendas, however, must be balanced
against the criminal use of these guns. If the
criminal damage wrought by cheap handguns and
AK-47's is likely to be more than the benefits to
self-defense or civil defense, then we should ban
them.
RAY
> > SK: Once again, RAY proves he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> > Retreads were WWII and Korea era vets. Helicopter pilots were often
> > warrant officers, that is, senior enlisted who, because of their
> > knowledge and physical abilities, were able to make it through flight
> > training at Mother Rucker and Ft. Wolters, TX. Most senior officers
> > and NCOs in both the NG and reserve are/were in their late 40s and early
> > 50s.
> >
> > But what can you expect from a garri-trooper like RAY? Hell, he's been
> > asked about 50 times what his MOS was and he still refuses to answer or
> > never had one....
> ======================================================================
>
> ME: Ray went to the Clinton School of Truth and Honesty. It's to be
> expected, Sam.
RR: If you or Kersh are claiming that helicopter
pilots were over 50 years old during the Vietnam
War... I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
both.
And while some NG NCOs and officers may have
been of that age, it's absolutely preposterous to
claim, as Kersh has done, that members of his
so-called "reserve" other than the NG were called
to war in Vietnam over the age of 50.
But then, Kersh never was close to the truth
on any subject, anyway.
RAY
> First, sentence construction. As you "freedom-fighter" continually
> use the narrower conditional statement to limit the operable statement
> comprising the 2nd Amendment, proof of concurrent similar statements
> should prove enlightening, and;
RR: There are no constructions in the BoR that
are 'similar' to the statements in the 2nd Am.
(Frank's 'second' is just a rehash of his 'first')
Scout
Mark <ka...@cts.com> wrote in article <91618041...@wagasa.cts.com>...
> Good New: Our great constitution is hard to change.
>
> Bad News: We are stuck with one really lousy amendment which gives us the
> highest murder rate in the world.
Wow, and I would like to see the causal relationship demonstrated there.
> Guns are no longer useful against
> government,
I disagree. That is unless you have some PROOF of this?
> but great to kill each other.
True, but that hardly means they cause our murder rate. Violent criminals
do that, and the lack of meaningful punishment for those violent criminals.
I mean what other country will allow a person convicted of 1st degree
murder back out on the street (to kill again ) not once, but twice within
10 years (his original sentence)? How do conditions of US prisons compare
to those in other nations, can you say country clubs with bars? Nope, while
guns may or may not be a factor in our rate of murder (and the best
evidence suggests that does not or even lowers it somewhat), there are many
other factors. The Swiss have no problems with their guns, yet they have
more and more deadly guns throughout their population than we do, on the
other hand we have Jamaica with a TOTAL prohibition on ALL guns, yet they
have the highest murder rate in the world. If you are to blame murder rates
on the presence of guns, how exactly do you explain these two
contradictions to that theory? Contradictions from each end showing the
EXACT opposite of what you claim?
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
Info at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369C0989...@Interaccess.com>...
RAY wrote:
> I was making the point that the type
> of self-defense can and should be controlled by
> society as a whole. You may agree with me that we
> have no right to nuclear weapons in our cellers
> because it would be more risky to society to have
> them present than not have them present.
> Likewise, I believe it's also more risky to
> society to allow everyone, without regulation, to
> have an AK-47 on the kitchen table.
> All opinions on these matters have value, and
> must be sorted out through the democratic
> process. The people in our collective wisdom
> should determine which policy is correct for
> society.
DY: Wasn't the Constitution and Bill of Rights provided by the society as a
whole to do the very things RAY has suggested? Doesn't the Constitution
recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and protect it
against the government itself? Is the society as a whole denied by the
Constitution the ability to change the Constitution if society as a whole
wants to? Why can't RAY understand that the majority of Americans believe
that their right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution,
and that they do not want RAY and other gun control advocates to
reinterpret the Constitution in order to allow the government to violate
their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Constitution?
RAY
>
>
> > RR: I was making the point that the type
> > of self-defense can and should be controlled by
> > society as a whole. You may agree with me that we
> > have no right to nuclear weapons in our cellers
> > because it would be more risky to society to have
> > them present than not have them present.
> > Likewise, I believe it's also more risky to
> > society to allow everyone, without regulation, to
> > have an AK-47 on the kitchen table.
> > All opinions on these matters have value, and
> > must be sorted out through the democratic
> > process. The people in our collective wisdom
> > should determine which policy is correct for
> > society.
>
> whole to do the very things RAY has suggested? Doesn't the Constitution
> recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and protect it
> against the government itself?
RR: The Constitution doesn't say which 'arms' it
is talking about, but the UMA'92 explained that
the type of arms conducive to a well-regulated
militia were muskets or firelocks. It most
assuredly wasn't talking about AK-47s, and you
cannot assume that the FFs would have agreed that
A) AK-47s were covered by the amendment or that B)
Even if they were covered by the amendment as
militia arms, that they would have been guaranteed
for non-militia purposes too.
DY: Is the society as a whole denied by the
> Constitution the ability to change the Constitution if society as a whole
> wants to? Why can't RAY understand that the majority of Americans believe
> that their right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution,
> and that they do not want RAY and other gun control advocates to
> reinterpret the Constitution in order to allow the government to violate
> their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Constitution?
RR: The majority of Americans WANT regulation of
the RKBA.
RD Thompson
> And with the criminal uses of guns
>outnumbering the defensive uses of guns by a ten
>to one ratio (NCVS), it's obvious that a lot needs
>to be done to get guns out of the hands of
>criminals.
> I don't see how arming non-criminals will
>help get guns away from criminals. If I was a
>criminal and I suspected my victim 'might' have a
>gun, I'd want to make sure that I had a gun too,
>and that I 'got the drop on' my victim first.
I also don't see how taking guns away from non-criminals will help get
them away from criminals either. You want to stop criminals from
having guns? Then strengthen 18USC922 so that even an attempt to
purchase a gun is felony. Then start really prosecuting the laws on
the books.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
Brassroots, Inc.
Sam A. Kersh
Now RAY is trying to hedge and admit over 50 NG members were called but
not re-treads or reserve members.... RAY, you lose again.
> But then, Kersh never was close to the truth
>on any subject, anyway.
RAY, just what is the MOS for a PLO?
Sam A. Kersh
>Frank Zember wrote:
>
>> First, sentence construction. As you "freedom-fighter" continually
>> use the narrower conditional statement to limit the operable statement
>> comprising the 2nd Amendment, proof of concurrent similar statements
>> should prove enlightening, and;
>
>RR: There are no constructions in the BoR that
>are 'similar' to the statements in the 2nd Am.
Wrong again, RAY....
>......United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990)......
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ 265
259 Opinion of the Court
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."
That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends
its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici
curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an]
awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties
Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have
been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.
The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and
established by "the People of the United States." The Second
Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and
powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U. S.
Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the
right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art.
I, section 2, cl. I ("The House of Representatives shall be
composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the
several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is
by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by
the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and
to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national
community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that community. See
United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 292 (1904)
(Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights,
because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these
things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter
forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts
with the words
Sam A. Kersh
>
>RR: The Constitution doesn't say which 'arms' it
>is talking about, but the UMA'92 explained that
>the type of arms conducive to a well-regulated
>militia were muskets or firelocks. It most
>assuredly wasn't talking about AK-47s, and you
>cannot assume that the FFs would have agreed that
>A) AK-47s were covered by the amendment or that B)
>Even if they were covered by the amendment as
>militia arms, that they would have been guaranteed
>for non-militia purposes too.
The UMA specified "state of the art" firearms of the time. If the AK-47
had been "state of the art" during the FF days, it would have been on
the required list.... RAY knows this but prefers to make inane
assertions anyway.
RD Thompson
>Good New: Our great constitution is hard to change.
>
>Bad News: We are stuck with one really lousy amendment which gives us the
>highest murder rate in the world. Guns are no longer useful against
>government, but great to kill each other.
You have to be kidding me. Do you really believe that the Second
Amendment causes people to murder each other??
Lock N Load
>Lock N Load wrote:
>> >RR: The right to self-defense was merely the right
>> >to resist.
>>
>>LL: Not just the right "right to resist" but the right to be judge, jury,
>> and executioner, since the only lawful use of self-defense would be in
>> a time of, a lack of civil protection, ie... no LEOs around to step in
>> and stop the bad guy intent on violence.
>
>RR: There were no LEOs per se, that's true. But
>there were other forces at work to occasionally
>deter nobles bent on violence. The bourgois was
>on the rise, providing a base in towns and cities
>where the common people could gain power (ie:
>money), with which to influence not only competing
>nobles, but also the King.. and hense the King's
>men (soldiers or sheriffs or magistrates).
> It was the beginnings of justice (tho today
>we'd probably call it bribery) for the common man
>outside of slavery, serfdom, blood feuds and
>duals.
All of what you say above may be true, but you misunderstand what I
was talking about. I was/am referring to modern times/today. Let me
re-state it. If a person finds themselves in a situation where they
are under attack from a person or persons intent on physical harm, and
there are no government officials available to "arbitrate" the
"dispute" then the person under attack has the right to use deadly
force if that is the only practical means to stop the attack.
>> >RR: This itself was revolutionary after
>> >centuries of Feudal law, which forbid large
>> >segments of the population from having any right
>> >to resist the nobility. Even in the 18th century
>> >it still had not been applied to slaves or wives
>> >(vis a vis their husbands). But the right to
>> >resist did not imply any particular method of
>> >resistance. That was left to the rules of
>> >society.
>>
>>LL: All true, and I put it to you that in today’s world the firearm is the
>> best tool to use for self and or civil defense. The firearm *IS* the
>> great equalizer. In feudal times the physically weak had to depend on
>> the strong for their defense, and thereby were obligated to, and at
>> the mercy of the physically stronger persons whim. In modern times
>> with the use of firearms a physically weak person can provide for
>> their own defense, and thereby not be obligated to nor at the mercy of
>> anyone who may be physically stronger.
>
>RR: There's nothing wrong with this logic, if you
>can guarantee that the 'physically weak' don't
>join the strong in using their guns for crime.
Trying to guarantee this is not a practical option. There will always
be those who will use power (be it physical, political, or
psychological) to subject others to their will. I believe it would be
better if we were to focus on removing these type of people from our
society, and deterring others that might have the inclination to act
in a like manner.
>It
>is easy to view the population as ALL Good or ALL
>Bad, but it is not realistic.
True.
>Many people are not
>career criminals, but they still engage in
>arguments and fights which never would amount to
>much, except if they happen to use a gun to settle
>them.
This may happen on a limited bases, but the majority of violent crime
is committed by REPEAT offenders. I will post the stats if you want.
So in my opinion it still looks like we need to keep the bad guy off
the street and make punishment severe enough to deter others.
> And with the criminal uses of guns
>outnumbering the defensive uses of guns by a ten
>to one ratio (NCVS), it's obvious that a lot needs
>to be done to get guns out of the hands of
>criminals.
Better yet why don't we remove the criminal from our society? And
allow the rest of us to provide for our defense against the few nut
cases that pop up.
> I don't see how arming non-criminals will
>help get guns away from criminals.
It won't, but it will allow the non-criminal to provide for their
defense against the few nut cases.
>If I was a
>criminal and I suspected my victim 'might' have a
>gun, I'd want to make sure that I had a gun too,
>and that I 'got the drop on' my victim first.
All probably true, but it still come down to the fact that the
majority of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Lets get
and keep the bad guys off the street.
>> >>LL: But the core message is that we do have the right to self-defense
>> >> (also if you read more of Locke’s Second Treatise you will find that
>> >> armed resistance to tyranny is also a right), and in this day and age,
>> >> I believe that firearms are the best tool for self-defense and/or
>> >> resistance to tyranny.'
>> >
>> >RR: Armed resistance to tyranny was indeed a
>> >right, but it was considered to be a collective
>> >right, and guns were not mentioned. As you said,
>> >Locke would have known of guns in his day. So if
>> >he had meant for there to be a right to resist
>> >with guns, he certainly would have said so.
>>
>>LL: I don't believe Mr. Locke was limiting himself to any particular
>> methods of self-defense. He was just illustrating that people do have
>> certain rights that are inherent to ourselves.
>
>RR: We agree. Locke was not stating a RKBA.
Not specifically, but the founding generation did recognize that we do
have the right to self and civil defense, and I believe they also
recognized that the firearm is the best tool to accomplish both of
those rights.
I found some interesting documents not to long ago called Elliot's
Debates. It seems that Elliot was some type of scribe for the
Continental Congress. He wrote what is called the Digest of the
Constitution, and on one of the pages it lists the rights of the
citizen (individual usage) and among the many rights listed (ie..
liberty of conscience in matters of religion, freedom of speech and of
the press, ect...) is the right to keep and bear arms. Also note that
another of the rights of the citizen is "to be free, except in the
Army, Navy, and Militia, from answering for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury.
As you can see the right to keep and bear arms is not tied to militia
service.
>> >>LL: What do you think would be the better tool for resistance to tyranny,
>> >> a bolt action hunting rifle or an AK-47?
>> >
>> >RR: Actually I think the most effective deterrant
>> >to tyranny would be hydrogen bombs in our
>> >cellars. Does that mean I have a right to get
>> >one?
>>
>>LL: I thought you wanted to discuss reasonable and/or practical means of
>> "gun control"
>
>RR: I am. I was making the point that the type
>of self-defense can and should be controlled by
>society as a whole. You may agree with me that we
>have no right to nuclear weapons in our cellers
>because it would be more risky to society to have
>them present than not have them present.
> Likewise, I believe it's also more risky to
>society to allow everyone, without regulation, to
>have an AK-47 on the kitchen table.
> All opinions on these matters have value, and
>must be sorted out through the democratic
>process. The people in our collective wisdom
>should determine which policy is correct for
>society.
I will agree that the founding generation may not have been able to
envision weapons like the A-bomb, but they were aware of weapons of
mass destruction ie... cannons, and some people (not all) that could
afford a cannon, owned a cannon.
>> >> LL: Just to let you know. Resorting to the use of arms for either self or
>> >> civil defense is always a *last* resort. We should maintain the Right
>> >> to Keep and Bear Arms, and we should preserve it for our children,
>> >> grandchildren...ect.
>> >
>> >RR: Agreed. I have never advocated repeal of the
>> >2nd Amendment. It's a dead issue right now, but
>> >you never know when it might come in handy.
>>
>>LL: Great, then help us to maintain it for future generations of
>> Americans. But you do have to understand that for it to be of any
>> meaning it has to be able to be implemented in a practical way. In my
>> opinion outlawing and/or banning weapons that might have a use in
>> personal defense (inexpensive handguns) and/or use in civil defense
>> (AK-47s) Is not a practical option for maintaining the RIGHT to
>> self-defense and/or civil defense.
>
>RR: Those agendas, however, must be balanced
>against the criminal use of these guns. If the
>criminal damage wrought by cheap handguns and
>AK-47's is likely to be more than the benefits to
>self-defense or civil defense, then we should ban
>them.
The focus should be on the criminal, not on the tool the criminal
uses.
Jim Patrick
<Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote:
>RR: The majority of Americans WANT regulation of
>the RKBA.
Is that why "regulation" gets voted down
every time it comes up on a ballot ?
JimP
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
David E. Young
--
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
Info at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369C9669...@Interaccess.com>...
> RR: The Constitution doesn't say which 'arms' it
> is talking about,
DY: The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear
arms against government infringment, not some arms against government
infringement.
RR cont.: but the UMA'92 explained that
> the type of arms conducive to a well-regulated
> militia were muskets or firelocks.
DY: It would be most interesting to see any quotes from RAY's printing of
UMA'92 which EXPLAIN that muskets or firelocks are conducive to a
"well-regulated militia", as RAY has claimed. In fact, a quote from UMA'92
simply containing the phrase "well-regulated militia" would be acceptable
from RAY at this juncture, so TPG readers could determine whether
"well-regulated militia" was ever even mentioned in UMA'92. One cannot be
too careful when uncautiously accepting RAY's spin, as it is apparently so
pronounced as to produce its own gravity, and hence its own reality quite
separate from that where eveyone else exists.
RR: It most
> assuredly wasn't talking about AK-47s, and you
> cannot assume that the FFs would have agreed that
> A) AK-47s were covered by the amendment or that B)
> Even if they were covered by the amendment as
> militia arms, that they would have been guaranteed
> for non-militia purposes too.
DY: Well, let's see what some of the founding generation was demanding to
be protected in the way of a bill of rights:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves
and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing
game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them,
unless for crimes committed..."
Proposed in the Penn. Ratifying Convention, December 12, 1787 on behalf of
the antifederalist minority
[The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.160]
RAY is mistaken.
> DY: Is the society as a whole denied by the
> > Constitution the ability to change the Constitution if society as a
whole
> > wants to? Why can't RAY understand that the majority of Americans
believe
> > that their right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the
Constitution,
> > and that they do not want RAY and other gun control advocates to
> > reinterpret the Constitution in order to allow the government to
violate
> > their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Constitution?
> RR: The majority of Americans WANT regulation of
> the RKBA.
DY: Then the majority of Americans can attempt to amend the Constitution.
Until that happens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the
supreme law of the land which cannot be infringed by the government without
violating the Constitution.
Frank Zember
RAY wrote in message <369C0C59...@Interaccess.com>...
>Frank Zember wrote:
>
>> First, sentence construction. As you "freedom-fighter" continually
>> use the narrower conditional statement to limit the operable statement
>> comprising the 2nd Amendment, proof of concurrent similar statements
>> should prove enlightening, and;
>
>RR: There are no constructions in the BoR that
>are 'similar' to the statements in the 2nd Am.
>
Since YOU aren't capable of understanding points when I only make them once.
Frank Zember
RAY wrote in message <369C9669...@Interaccess.com>...
>David E. Young wrote:
>>
>>
>> > RR: I was making the point that the type
>> > of self-defense can and should be controlled by
>> > society as a whole. You may agree with me that we
>> > have no right to nuclear weapons in our cellers
>> > because it would be more risky to society to have
>> > them present than not have them present.
>> > Likewise, I believe it's also more risky to
>> > society to allow everyone, without regulation, to
>> > have an AK-47 on the kitchen table.
>> > All opinions on these matters have value, and
>> > must be sorted out through the democratic
>> > process. The people in our collective wisdom
>> > should determine which policy is correct for
>> > society.
>>
a
>> whole to do the very things RAY has suggested? Doesn't the Constitution
>> recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and protect it
>> against the government itself?
>
>the type of arms conducive to a well-regulated
>assuredly wasn't talking about AK-47s, and you
>cannot assume that the FFs would have agreed that
>A) AK-47s were covered by the amendment or that B)
>Even if they were covered by the amendment as
>militia arms, that they would have been guaranteed
>for non-militia purposes too.
>
The Founding Fathers believed that the citizenry should be able to equip and
train themselves will "all the terrible implements of the soldier". If the
soldier of the time was equipped with an AK, our Founding Fathers would have
supported the citizen owning an AK, as well.
>DY: Is the society as a whole denied by the
>> Constitution the ability to change the Constitution if society as a whole
>> wants to? Why can't RAY understand that the majority of Americans believe
>> that their right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution,
>> and that they do not want RAY and other gun control advocates to
>> reinterpret the Constitution in order to allow the government to violate
>> their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Constitution?
>
>RR: The majority of Americans WANT regulation of
>the RKBA.
They want regulation of criminals MORE.
RAY
> >RR: And with the criminal uses of guns
> >outnumbering the defensive uses of guns by a ten
> >to one ratio (NCVS), it's obvious that a lot needs
> >to be done to get guns out of the hands of
> >criminals.
> > I don't see how arming non-criminals will
> >help get guns away from criminals. If I was a
> >criminal and I suspected my victim 'might' have a
> >gun, I'd want to make sure that I had a gun too,
> >and that I 'got the drop on' my victim first.
>
>RD: I also don't see how taking guns away from non-criminals will help get
> them away from criminals either. You want to stop criminals from
> having guns? Then strengthen 18USC922 so that even an attempt to
> purchase a gun is felony. Then start really prosecuting the laws on
> the books.
RR: I don't advocate taking guns away from
lawful, responsible, non-violent and sane adults.
But I agree with you that 18USC922 needs major
strengthening.
RAY
> All of what you say above may be true, but you misunderstand what I
> was talking about. I was/am referring to modern times/today. Let me
> re-state it. If a person finds themselves in a situation where they
> are under attack from a person or persons intent on physical harm, and
> there are no government officials available to "arbitrate" the
> "dispute" then the person under attack has the right to use deadly
> force if that is the only practical means to stop the attack.
RR: True. If a woman is being raped, she has a
perfect right to whack him with an ax or shoot him
with a gun. Society still has the right,
however, to regulate the distribution of axes and
guns. If society believes that guns are needed
to facilitate the right to self-defense more than
they are injurious to society, then the
regulations will be limited. If the opposite is
true, the regulations need to be strengthened.
With a ten to one ratio of gun crimes vs. gun
defenses (NCVS Stats).... I think it's pretty
clear which way society should be headed.
This may mean that some women will not be
allowed to have guns for self-defense (female
felons, violent misdemeanor convictions, multiple
arrests for violence, substance addictions,
insanity).
If that happens, they will just have to plan
on another form of defense. Last I heard, axes
still are perfectly legal to carry, open or
concealed!
> LL: There will always
> be those who will use power (be it physical, political, or
> psychological) to subject others to their will. I believe it would be
> better if we were to focus on removing these type of people from our
> society, and deterring others that might have the inclination to act
> in a like manner.
RR: How would you go about removing them? And
how would you choose whom to remove? Would you
lock up all violent persons for life, as soon as
they display their streak of violence? Even I
don't go so far as to put the bar bully in jail
forever.
> >RR: Many people are not
> >career criminals, but they still engage in
> >arguments and fights which never would amount to
> >much, except if they happen to use a gun to settle
> >them.
>
>LL: This may happen on a limited bases, but the majority of violent crime
> is committed by REPEAT offenders. I will post the stats if you want.
> So in my opinion it still looks like we need to keep the bad guy off
> the street and make punishment severe enough to deter others.
RR: So maybe you don't put the bar bully in the
hoosgow forever just for a single fight. Maybe
you wait for 2 or 3 fights, the 'repeat'
offender? What if he uses a gun on the second
fight and kills someone? How will having let him
out of jail helped then?
> >RR: I don't see how arming non-criminals will
> >help get guns away from criminals.
>
>LL: It won't, but it will allow the non-criminal to provide for their
> defense against the few nut cases.
RR: And what if the laws allowing non-criminals
access to guns are so loose that they result in
those guns being transferred to criminals and used
criminally MORE OFTEN than the guns are actually
used for lawful self defense?
> >>LL: I don't believe Mr. Locke was limiting himself to any particular
> >> methods of self-defense. He was just illustrating that people do have
> >> certain rights that are inherent to ourselves.
> >
> >RR: We agree. Locke was not stating a RKBA.
>
>LL: Not specifically, but the founding generation did recognize that we do
> have the right to self and civil defense, and I believe they also
> recognized that the firearm is the best tool to accomplish both of
> those rights.
>
> I found some interesting documents not to long ago called Elliot's
> Debates. It seems that Elliot was some type of scribe for the
> Continental Congress. He wrote what is called the Digest of the
> Constitution, and on one of the pages it lists the rights of the
> citizen (individual usage) and among the many rights listed (ie..
> liberty of conscience in matters of religion, freedom of speech and of
> the press, ect...) is the right to keep and bear arms. Also note that
> another of the rights of the citizen is "to be free, except in the
> Army, Navy, and Militia, from answering for a capital or otherwise
> infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury.
> As you can see the right to keep and bear arms is not tied to militia
> service.
RR: Depends on who this Elliot was, exactly what
he meant by what he said, what his motive was, and
why we should listen to him. Specifically, what
part of the Constitution was he referred to, (if
any) when he said the 'rights of the citizens'
included firearms? Could he have meant for
militia duty?
You last sentence, BTW, does not invalidate
the notion that the RKBA required militia duty.
And since all able bodied citizens were in the
Militia back then, his use of the term in
connection with capital crimes (if he in fact used
it this way) must have been referring to citizens
in the Militia who had been called to National
duty and were serving in wartime. Actual service
in wartime put militiamen on the same footing (in
terms of compensation and penalties) as the
Regular Army.
> >RR: I was making the point that the type
> >of self-defense can and should be controlled by
> >society as a whole. You may agree with me that we
> >have no right to nuclear weapons in our cellers
> >because it would be more risky to society to have
> >them present than not have them present.
> > Likewise, I believe it's also more risky to
> >society to allow everyone, without regulation, to
> >have an AK-47 on the kitchen table.
> > All opinions on these matters have value, and
> >must be sorted out through the democratic
> >process. The people in our collective wisdom
> >should determine which policy is correct for
> >society.
>
> LL: I will agree that the founding generation may not have been able to
> envision weapons like the A-bomb, but they were aware of weapons of
> mass destruction ie... cannons, and some people (not all) that could
> afford a cannon, owned a cannon.
RR: 18th century Cannons were nothing compared to
a fully automatic AK-47 with detachable 30-round
magazines.
But let's not stray from the topic. Do you think
society should allow everyone, without regulation,
to have such AK-47s on their kitchen table if they
so wish?
> >>LL: Great, then help us to maintain it for future generations of
> >> Americans. But you do have to understand that for it to be of any
> >> meaning it has to be able to be implemented in a practical way. In my
> >> opinion outlawing and/or banning weapons that might have a use in
> >> personal defense (inexpensive handguns) and/or use in civil defense
> >> (AK-47s) Is not a practical option for maintaining the RIGHT to
> >> self-defense and/or civil defense.
> >
> >RR: Those agendas, however, must be balanced
> >against the criminal use of these guns. If the
> >criminal damage wrought by cheap handguns and
> >AK-47's is likely to be more than the benefits to
> >self-defense or civil defense, then we should ban
> >them.
>
>LL: The focus should be on the criminal, not on the tool the criminal
> uses.
RR: Which brings us full circle, of course.
Again, exactly how would you 'focus' on the
criminal to effectively lower the crime rate?
John Simutis
: With a ten to one ratio of gun crimes vs. gun
: defenses (NCVS Stats).... I think it's pretty
: clear which way society should be headed.
Unsupported and refuted.
RAY
> > RR: The Constitution doesn't say which 'arms' it
> > is talking about,
>
> DY: The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms against government infringment, not some arms against government
> infringement.
RR: It doesn't say ALL arms, either.
> RR cont.: but the UMA'92 explained that
> > the type of arms conducive to a well-regulated
> > militia were muskets or firelocks.
>
> DY: It would be most interesting to see any quotes from RAY's printing of
> UMA'92 which EXPLAIN that muskets or firelocks are conducive to a
> "well-regulated militia", as RAY has claimed. In fact, a quote from UMA'92
> simply containing the phrase "well-regulated militia" would be acceptable
> from RAY at this juncture, so TPG readers could determine whether
> "well-regulated militia" was ever even mentioned in UMA'92. One cannot be
> too careful when uncautiously accepting RAY's spin, as it is apparently so
> pronounced as to produce its own gravity, and hence its own reality quite
> separate from that where eveyone else exists.
RR: The UMA says that:
"every citizen, so enrolled and notified,
should, within six months thereafter, provide
himself with a good musket or firelock..." If the
Congress didn't think a musket or firelock was
condusive to the militia, they wouldn't have
specified that militiamen get those weapons.
And I would like to see any quote from Young's
'famous' book to the effect that the UMA was meant
to form a poorly-regulated militia... :-)
> RR: It most
> > assuredly wasn't talking about AK-47s, and you
> > cannot assume that the FFs would have agreed that
> > A) AK-47s were covered by the amendment or that B)
> > Even if they were covered by the amendment as
> > militia arms, that they would have been guaranteed
> > for non-militia purposes too.
>
> DY: Well, let's see what some of the founding generation was demanding to
> be protected in the way of a bill of rights:
> "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves
> and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing
> game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them,
> unless for crimes committed..."
> Proposed in the Penn. Ratifying Convention, December 12, 1787 on behalf of
> the antifederalist minority
> [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.160]
> RAY is mistaken.
RR: Your quote is the opinion of just 34 men,
written out as an afterthought to the Ratifying
Convention. Yet you would make this small
minority plank in just one state the BASIS for
your entire Constitutional Argument? Young, your
reference is irrelevant.
RAY
> The Founding Fathers believed that the citizenry should be able to equip and
> train themselves will "all the terrible implements of the soldier". If the
> soldier of the time was equipped with an AK, our Founding Fathers would have
> supported the citizen owning an AK, as well.
RR: For war, yes. For anything else, no.
John Simutis
: Frank Zember wrote:
So long as they had it when needed, there is no evidence that the
restriction you imply was contemplated.
--
John Simutis sim...@ccnet.com
122 degrees West Longitude, 38 degrees North Latitude
-- unless the North American Plate slips bigtime ...
RAY
>
> RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> : With a ten to one ratio of gun crimes vs. gun
> : defenses (NCVS Stats).... I think it's pretty
> : clear which way society should be headed.
>
RR: Ten to one. Fully supported. First, the gun
crimes:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 5 P.M. EDT
BJS
SUNDAY, JULY 9, 1995
202-307-0784
HANDGUNS USED IN MORE THAN ONE MILLION VIOLENT
CRIMES
WASHINGTON, D.C.--About 1.3 million U.S.
residents
faced an assailant armed with a firearm during
1993, the
Department of Justice announced today. Eighty-six
percent
of the time (in 1.1 million violent crimes) the
weapons were
handguns. Seventy percent of the 24,526 murders
in 1993
were committed with firearms, of which four out of
five were
with a handgun. Recent studies indicate that the
use of
large caliber semi-automatic handguns in homicides
has been
increasing.
RR: Now, the gun defenses:
"Crime Data Brief
Guns and Crime
April 1994, NCJ-147003:
On average per year in 1987-92, about 62,200
victims of violent crime, about 1% of all victims
of violence, used a firearm to defend themselves.
Another 20,300 used a firearm to defend their
property during a theft, household burglary, or
motor vehical theft."
or, if you prefer:
"The Gun Debate's New Mythical Number, How many
Defensive Uses per Year?" - Philip Cook, Jens
Ludwig, funded by the National Institute of
Justice, 1997:
... the National Crime Victimization Survey,
conducted for the US DoJ by the Census Bureau.
In this survey the false-positive problem is
minimized by the design of the questionaire....
The resulting estimate for the annual number of
DGUs (1992-94) is about 108,000..."
RR: Either way, you've got 1.3 million gun crimes
a year, but only either 82,500 or 108,000 gun
defenses.. more than enough for a ten to one
ratio.
But you've seen these stats before. You just
choose to ignore them.
Lee E. Brown
RAY wrote in message <369E7282...@Interaccess.com>...
>With a ten to one ratio of gun crimes vs. gun
>defenses (NCVS Stats).... I think it's pretty
>clear which way society should be headed.
Stop LYING, Ray.
You know that the criminal gets shot in only a small fraction of defensive gun
uses yet you continue to malappropriate the statistics like a little kid lying
about his missing homework.
Grow UP, willya?
RAY
> Fine, then when virtually every male citizen is so enrolled (US title 10,
> Chapter 13) and notified (ignorance of the law is not an excuse) then you
> are telling us that those male citizens are suppose to buy a state of the
> art weapon within 6 months?
RR: That was enrolled in a militia that does
regular training, Scout (read about it in the
UMA). Virtually none of the current citizenry
undergoes such training, and virtually none of the
current citizenry is 'enrolled' in ANY militia.
10USC13 says we are part of an unorganized
militia, but that is not the same thing as being
'enrolled' in an unorganized militia. Nobody has
put my name on any roll call.
And Notification was crucial to the UMA. For
you to ignore it by claiming 'ignorance is no
excuse' is ridiculous.
Michael Cidras
true measure of defenses, it is a survey of Crime Victimization.
RAY wrote in message <369EB4EA...@Interaccess.com>...
>John Simutis wrote:
>>
>> RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote:
>>
>> : With a ten to one ratio of gun crimes vs. gun
>> : defenses (NCVS Stats).... I think it's pretty
>> : clear which way society should be headed.
>>
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369E7B75...@Interaccess.com>...
> David E. Young wrote:
>
> > > RR: The Constitution doesn't say which 'arms' it
> > > is talking about,
> >
> > DY: The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and
bear
> > arms against government infringment, not some arms against government
> > infringement.
>
> RR: It doesn't say ALL arms, either.
Certainly it does. No qualifiers, means it is addressing the entire group.
If I told a class of students "The class will move outside", are you
claiming that I only mean for a portion of the class to move outside?
Nope, it means the WHOLE class. Similarly when the 2nd declares "...the
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." it is talking about
the ENTIRE class of arms. Not just some arms, or particular types, or ones
you happen to like, but ALL arms.
Tell me Ray, when you read the 1st, do you feel the government can infringe
the freedom of speech, since it doesn't say ALL speech?
Fine, then when virtually every male citizen is so enrolled (US title 10,
Chapter 13) and notified (ignorance of the law is not an excuse) then you
are telling us that those male citizens are suppose to buy a state of the
art weapon within 6 months?
How exactly does federal law provide for that?
> > RR: It most
> > > assuredly wasn't talking about AK-47s, and you
> > > cannot assume that the FFs would have agreed that
> > > A) AK-47s were covered by the amendment or that B)
> > > Even if they were covered by the amendment as
> > > militia arms, that they would have been guaranteed
> > > for non-militia purposes too.
> >
> > DY: Well, let's see what some of the founding generation was demanding
to
> > be protected in the way of a bill of rights:
> > "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves
> > and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of
killing
> > game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of
them,
> > unless for crimes committed..."
> > Proposed in the Penn. Ratifying Convention, December 12, 1787 on behalf
of
> > the antifederalist minority
> > [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.160]
> > RAY is mistaken.
>
> RR: Your quote is the opinion of just 34 men,
Ray, on the other hand depends on the opinion of ONE man to define what a
"well regulated militia" is. Sounds like his standards are different
depending upon what he is trying to prove.......
> written out as an afterthought to the Ratifying
> Convention. Yet you would make this small
> minority plank in just one state the BASIS for
> your entire Constitutional Argument? Young, your
> reference is irrelevant.
So IOW we can ignore anything stated by Hamilton?
Scout
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369E67A2...@Interaccess.com>...
> RD Thompson wrote:
>
> > >RR: And with the criminal uses of guns
> > >outnumbering the defensive uses of guns by a ten
> > >to one ratio (NCVS), it's obvious that a lot needs
> > >to be done to get guns out of the hands of
> > >criminals.
> > > I don't see how arming non-criminals will
> > >help get guns away from criminals. If I was a
> > >criminal and I suspected my victim 'might' have a
> > >gun, I'd want to make sure that I had a gun too,
> > >and that I 'got the drop on' my victim first.
> >
> >RD: I also don't see how taking guns away from non-criminals will help
get
> > them away from criminals either. You want to stop criminals from
> > having guns? Then strengthen 18USC922 so that even an attempt to
> > purchase a gun is felony. Then start really prosecuting the laws on
> > the books.
>
> RR: I don't advocate taking guns away from
> lawful, responsible, non-violent and sane adults.
> But I agree with you that 18USC922 needs major
> strengthening.
ROFL.
Thanks ray, that touch of humor was needed.
John Simutis
: John Simutis wrote:
:>
:> RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote:
:>
:> : defenses (NCVS Stats).... I think it's pretty
:> : clear which way society should be headed.
:>JS: Unsupported and refuted.
: or, if you prefer:
Cook/Ludwig say 1.5 million minimum - see previous thread.
10-1 is a lie.
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
Info at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369E7B75...@Interaccess.com>...
> > RR: It most
> > > assuredly wasn't talking about AK-47s, and you
> > > cannot assume that the FFs would have agreed that
> > > A) AK-47s were covered by the amendment or that B)
> > > Even if they were covered by the amendment as
> > > militia arms, that they would have been guaranteed
> > > for non-militia purposes too.
> >
> > DY: Well, let's see what some of the founding generation was demanding
to
> > be protected in the way of a bill of rights:
> > "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves
> > and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of
killing
> > game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of
them,
> > unless for crimes committed..."
> > Proposed in the Penn. Ratifying Convention, December 12, 1787 on behalf
of
> > the antifederalist minority
> > [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.160]
> > RAY is mistaken.
>
> RR: Your quote is the opinion of just 34 men,
> written out as an afterthought to the Ratifying
> Convention. Yet you would make this small
> minority plank in just one state the BASIS for
> your entire Constitutional Argument? Young, your
> reference is irrelevant.
DY: RAY has a penchant for not only getting the big things wrong, such as
his interpretation of the Second Amendment, but also the little ones. So,
here are some of his points in the short paragraph above which RAY needs to
correct.
1) There were 23 members of the Penn. Minority, not 34. Where RAY gets his
number from is anybody's guess.
2) The proposals of the Penn. Minority were not an afterthought to the
Convention. They were presented in the Convention on Dec. 12, 1787, and
were all voted down by the federalists. Their list included proposals to
protect rights later found in U.S. Bill of Rights articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, and 10.
3) RAY is well aware that the BASIS for the constitutional argument about
the Second Amendment is found in the period sources, not just in the Penn.
Minority. The Origin of the Second Amendment, my collection of period
sources, which BTW RAY intends to make sure are never allowed in his local
public library, include over 780 pages of documents, not just the Penn.
Minority proposals.
RAY has demonstrated day after day that he is not in the least interested
in facts or the truth, merely in providing a spin to everything so it
matches his preconceived notions. RAY especially does not like period
sources.
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
Info at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369EB64A...@Interaccess.com>...
> Scout wrote:
>
> > Fine, then when virtually every male citizen is so enrolled (US title
10,
> > Chapter 13) and notified (ignorance of the law is not an excuse) then
you
> > are telling us that those male citizens are suppose to buy a state of
the
> > art weapon within 6 months?
>
> RR: That was enrolled in a militia that does
> regular training, Scout (read about it in the
> UMA). Virtually none of the current citizenry
> undergoes such training, and virtually none of the
> current citizenry is 'enrolled' in ANY militia.
> 10USC13 says we are part of an unorganized
> militia, but that is not the same thing as being
> 'enrolled' in an unorganized militia. Nobody has
> put my name on any roll call.
> And Notification was crucial to the UMA. For
> you to ignore it by claiming 'ignorance is no
> excuse' is ridiculous.
DY: No enrollment necessary under the Second Amendment, which provides its
own notification:
"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."
David E. Young
editor - THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A Documentary History of the
Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed
Populace 1787-1792.
Info at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
RAY <Ki...@Interaccess.com> wrote in article
<369E7C14...@Interaccess.com>...
> Frank Zember wrote:
>
> > The Founding Fathers believed that the citizenry should be able to
equip and
> > train themselves will "all the terrible implements of the soldier". If
the
> > soldier of the time was equipped with an AK, our Founding Fathers would
have
> > supported the citizen owning an AK, as well.
>
> RR: For war, yes. For anything else, no.
DY: RAY does not make any sense here. The protection of the Second
Amendment is directed against the government's infringement. It is the
government that needed to be guarded against by every article of the Bill
of Rights. This is something which RAY always misses. Also, the Second
Amendment and other provisions protecting individual rights in the Bill of
Rights are desendants of articles protecting the same rights found in the
state bills of rights. RAY likes to forget about this also.
RD Thompson
>RD Thompson wrote:
>
>> >RR: And with the criminal uses of guns
>> >outnumbering the defensive uses of guns by a ten
>> >to one ratio (NCVS), it's obvious that a lot needs
>> >to be done to get guns out of the hands of
>> >criminals.
>> > I don't see how arming non-criminals will
>> >help get guns away from criminals. If I was a
>> >criminal and I suspected my victim 'might' have a
>> >gun, I'd want to make sure that I had a gun too,
>> >and that I 'got the drop on' my victim first.
>>
>>RD: I also don't see how taking guns away from non-criminals will help get
>> them away from criminals either. You want to stop criminals from
>> having guns? Then strengthen 18USC922 so that even an attempt to
>> purchase a gun is felony. Then start really prosecuting the laws on
>> the books.
>
>RR: I don't advocate taking guns away from
>lawful, responsible, non-violent and sane adults.
>But I agree with you that 18USC922 needs major
>strengthening.
So far, I can only see one addition to it. That would be to make
possession of a firearm by a prohibited possessor a felony.
RD Thompson
>> > RR: The Constitution doesn't say which 'arms' it
>> > is talking about,
>>
>> DY: The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear
>> arms against government infringment, not some arms against government
>> infringement.
>
>RR: It doesn't say ALL arms, either.
Hmmm, where *is* the limitation, RAY? The only one that I can see is
that, in general, most militia members were expected to show up with
the state of the art firearms of the day. Those included sidearms
(handguns), muskets (rifles) and shotguns. As has been noted in this
NG before, some also had cannon, some even had warships and they
weren't turned away.
W. E. Woods
>
> M. Eglestone wrote:
> >
> > RAY wrote:
> >
> > > RR: Now why on earth would the founding fathers
> > > think that my 76 year old aunt would be of any
> > > possible use to a militia if she is armed?
> > > In point of fact, the 2nd Congress limited
> > > militiapersons to certain ages and to males, and
> > > allowed the States to limit them further according
> > > to status.
> > > They it required all remaining citizens to
> > > sign up and begin official militia training.
> > > It's for THOSE people in THOSE militias that the
> > > 2nd Amendment was passed.
> > ======================================================================
> >
> > ME: First Off, Ray, your Grandmother might just be the most valuable
> > asset a Militia could have (IF) she had special skills that were
> > required. Age is seldom a consideration in war efforts. It's only
> > consider go be a limiting factor to front line troops. I'm still
> > subject to recall, and I'm 54 years old.
> >
> > Where you get yourself screwed up on the AGE limits that are listed
> > is in the fact that those limits are for "initial service." Once IN
> > service, advanced age plays no role. At the same time, those are the
> > limits placed on (full service) personnel only. HQ and Support people
> > can be WAY beyond the upper age limit and still serve with honor.
> >
> > Congress and the States MAY have required people to sign up for a
> > Militia but, when a war broke out, they took any warm body they could
> > get their hands on. Young men who were under age fought side by side
> > with men who were over age. Old Men and Women were also used in other
> > areas. They served the Medical Corps, Cooked Food, Loaded Guns and
> > Maintained Equipment for front line troops. Just because some may have
> > played no active role in front line combat, does not mean that they
> > were not (there) making a contribution.
> >
> > You think of a Militia as men in uniform. I put to you that 99
> > percent of the Militia which defended this country had NO uniforms at
> > all. They wore what ever they had in the way of clothing and equipped
> > themselves with what ever they could buy or beg from others. What
> > little organization came into play was developed as situations
> > occurred. Much of the training was done (on the job) by placing
> > experienced fighters along side the inexperienced. It was a learn as
> > you go type of situation for many, many years.
> >
> > The Military has a very long history of pumping out troops in minimum
> > time when a war it in progress. In my case, in 1965, I was moved
> > through basic training in five weeks, shot through technical training
> > in six weeks (12 hours a day, 6 days a week) and hit my first duty
> > station twelve weeks after being signed up. (they gave me an entire 7
> > days leave, after technical school).
>
> RR: Good post. First, I don't think of militia
> ONLY as men in uniforms. I DO think of
> well-regulated militia as people who've been
> physically enrolled and in training.
And you refuse to acknowledge that there is anything but you "well-regulatedd"
militia, so you always change the statements of others to that. Pretty phony.
> Next, the age thing. I agree with you that
> in wartime, age limitations were sometimes waved
> for militia service. I suspect the rule of thumb
> then was all able-bodied people. However, this
> just confirms my contention that the founding
> fathers thought of "the people" of the 2nd
> Amendment as those in well-regulated militias.
ROTFL! RAY, you would have made a good slave. "Yes, Massa, I be doin' what you
say now." Maybe a serf, or something. Anything but a free man.
> Finally, I didn't see many people serving the
> armed forces over the age of 50 when I was in
> service (era of the Vietnam War), and the few that
> were around that age were the lifers, about to
> retire (as you did yourself). (a coincidence, but
> we both entered service the same year, 1965. I
> did my basic at Ft. Jackson and advanced at Ft.
> Harrison.)
I know a number of military people 50 and over. Weren't you paying attention,
or are you going to try one of those percentage things again, and try to make
it somehow meaningful?
> The last war when older persons served in
> anything close to what could be called a militia
> was WWII, a sort of volunteer home guard that was
> called various names, the Coast Guard Reserve or
> the Alaskan Territorial Guard, etc. Some did
> bring their own guns, but unlike in the Uniform
> Militia Act, they were not required to do so. The
> Federal Government was required to supply the
> guns, and did. Hell, in Texas, the Feds even
> supplied the horses for them to ride on during
> patrols down the coast looking for U-boats.
> ("Guardians of the Sea" by Johnson; "The Tundra
> War," by Marston)
> The point is that even when your most basic
> 'rush to arms' militias were formed in this
> century, even at the height of the threat of
> foreign invasion, they still did not need nor were
> required to use their private arms. The 2nd
> Amendment was of no use, even then.
>
> >ME: You, Ray, are fond of Hamilton's work.
>
> RR: Actually I only quote Hamilton because
> Federalist #29 defined a 'well-regulated militia'
> in the sense of its use in his day. If other
> founding fathers had defined the term, I would
> have quoted them.
>
> > ME: Hamilton was a trained combat
> > officer. He was used to working with both professional (trained)
> > troops and Civilian Militia. His writing reflects his "objections" to
> > the "warm body" Militia, but he still acknowledge the necessity of
> > having them available (trained or not). I would be willing to bet a
> > buck to a donut that AGE and experience were not big factors in his
> > mind when faced with a do or die situation. THAT, is what WAR is all
> > about!
>
> RR: Hamilton's 'warm body' militia was not his
> 'well regulated' militia. Thus, it is irrelevant
> to our discussions about the 2nAm.
No, RAY, no one is going to let you pull that. One time you say there is no
such thing as anything but the "well-regulated" militia. Another time you will
claim that only the "well-regulated" militia has the RKBA. Then you say that
the people are not the militia and don't have the RKBA. Little discrepancies
that add up.
>
> >ME: The 2nd Amendment says NOTHING about signing up for a Militia. It has
> > NO requirements listed for RKBA. It only acknowledges one FACT (the
> > necessity for a Militia). It places that responsibility on the PEOPLE.
> > Our own American History tell us that THAT is the way it worked; not
> > only on paper, but also in practice.
>
> RR: Don't have the foggiest idea what you're
> talking about here. The responsibility for the
> 'militia' was placed on governments to form and
> train that militia, and to those of a certain age,
> sex and race to buy a weapons kit to use during
> that training (UMA '92). You are correct that the
> 2nAm doesn't specify this... but the same Founding
> Fathers that wrote and passed the 2nAm were the
> ones who made up the rules (UMA).
So what? That is meaningless. My wife bought me a power saw, that doesn't mean
she knows how it works, sets the times it will be used, how it will be used,
or trains me in its use. Your logic is flawed, as usual.
> It is
> inconceivable that they meant for the 2nAm to
> apply to anything other than a uniform, trained,
> universal militia composed of free white males.
It's quite conceivable. You just can't fit it into your little fantasy about
gun control.
"It is dangerous to be right
when the government is wrong."
--Voltaire
"If no one is shooting at you,
you have nothing to complain about.
If someone is, shoot back."
--Curt Rich
W. E. Woods
>
> M. Eglestone wrote:
>
> > > Retreads were WWII and Korea era vets. Helicopter pilots were often
> > > warrant officers, that is, senior enlisted who, because of their
> > > knowledge and physical abilities, were able to make it through flight
> > > training at Mother Rucker and Ft. Wolters, TX. Most senior officers
> > > and NCOs in both the NG and reserve are/were in their late 40s and early
> > > 50s.
> > >
> > > But what can you expect from a garri-trooper like RAY? Hell, he's been
> > > asked about 50 times what his MOS was and he still refuses to answer or
> > > never had one....
> > ======================================================================
> >
> > ME: Ray went to the Clinton School of Truth and Honesty. It's to be
> > expected, Sam.
>
> RR: If you or Kersh are claiming that helicopter
> pilots were over 50 years old during the Vietnam
> War... I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
> both.
You really should look some things up before you spout off about them if you
don't know already. There are distinct periods in the Vitnam war that effect
this discussion. Earlier in the war many of the technical people were older,
as were many officers and NCO's.. Only later did the age begin dropping as
people cashiered out, and the number and percentage of new people increased.
Go to the library. They have books. It can be an educational experience.
W. E. Woods
>
> Good New: Our great constitution is hard to change.
>
> Bad News: We are stuck with one really lousy amendment which gives us the
> highest murder rate in the world. Guns are no longer useful against
> government, but great to kill each other.
Good News: You appear to be able to read.
Bad News: You appear to be unable to comprehend.
You are also completely wrong.
W. E. Woods
>
> M. Eglestone wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Constitution that specifies who belongs in a
> > > militia. Article one leaves that up to Congress.
> > > And the 2nd Amendment only says that
> > > militiapersons must be well-regulated. I think
> > > you have been Reading a different Constitution
> > > than the rest of us.
> > ===================================================================
> >
> > Excuse ME, but where does the word "MUST" exist in the 2nd Amendment.
> > It doesn't say a single thing about about a Militia Person who MUST be
> > well regulated.
> >
> > I think you are confusing Article 1, Section 8 with the Amendment TO
> > that Article which is commonly know as the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd
> > Amendment alters Article 1, Section 8, and specifies that the PEOPLE
> > are the Militia by giving them the Right to keep and bear Arms. It
> > also says that the RIGHT shall not be infringed.
>
> RR: Correction: The 2nd Am specifies that the
> PEOPLE are the WELL REGULATED militia.
No it doesn't, RAY, and you're silly to say it does. Kaplan and others coming
soon. BOHICA.
W. E. Woods
>
> M. Eglestone wrote:
>
> > shot down so many times that it's not funny.
>
> RR: The Supreme Court Agrees with Me.
In your dreams.
--
W. E. Woods
>
>
> RR: There's nothing wrong with this logic, if you
> can guarantee that the 'physically weak' don't
> join the strong in using their guns for crime. It
> is easy to view the population as ALL Good or ALL
> Bad, but it is not realistic.
RAY, you're playing word games, again. People may not be good all the way
through, but they are damn well good people until they prove otherwise. Like
the term presumed innocent, RAY. Your way of assuming people to all be
"potentially" guilty is sick, sad, and more than a bit disgusting.
W. E. Woods
>
> David E. Young wrote:
> >
> >
> > > of self-defense can and should be controlled by
> > > society as a whole. You may agree with me that we
> > > have no right to nuclear weapons in our cellers
> > > because it would be more risky to society to have
> > > them present than not have them present.
> > > Likewise, I believe it's also more risky to
> > > society to allow everyone, without regulation, to
> > > have an AK-47 on the kitchen table.
> > > All opinions on these matters have value, and
> > > must be sorted out through the democratic
> > > process. The people in our collective wisdom
> > > should determine which policy is correct for
> > > society.
> >
> > whole to do the very things RAY has suggested? Doesn't the Constitution
> > recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and protect it
> > against the government itself?
>
> is talking about,
It uses the term arms, doesn't it? "ARMS." That's enough, RAY. You are simply
playing word games again. Arms are arms.
<snip RAY's game playing>
W. E. Woods
>
> Frank Zember wrote:
>
> > The Founding Fathers believed that the citizenry should be able to equip and
> > train themselves will "all the terrible implements of the soldier". If the
> > soldier of the time was equipped with an AK, our Founding Fathers would have
> > supported the citizen owning an AK, as well.
>
> RR: For war, yes. For anything else, no.
You're wrong, of course, but it doesn't really matter. The citizens would have
had to have them at all times *in case* of war.
--
W. E. Woods
>
> David E. Young wrote:
>
> > > RR: The Constitution doesn't say which 'arms' it
> > > is talking about,
> >
> > arms against government infringment, not some arms against government
> > infringement.
>
> RR: It doesn't say ALL arms, either.
It doesn't need to. You are showing another weakness in your command of the
language, and/or trying to play word games again.
>
> > RR cont.: but the UMA'92 explained that
> > > the type of arms conducive to a well-regulated
> > > militia were muskets or firelocks.
> >
> > DY: It would be most interesting to see any quotes from RAY's printing of
> > UMA'92 which EXPLAIN that muskets or firelocks are conducive to a
> > "well-regulated militia", as RAY has claimed. In fact, a quote from UMA'92
> > simply containing the phrase "well-regulated militia" would be acceptable
> > from RAY at this juncture, so TPG readers could determine whether
> > "well-regulated militia" was ever even mentioned in UMA'92. One cannot be
> > too careful when uncautiously accepting RAY's spin, as it is apparently so
> > pronounced as to produce its own gravity, and hence its own reality quite
> > separate from that where eveyone else exists.
>
> RR: The UMA says that:
> "every citizen, so enrolled and notified,
> should, within six months thereafter, provide
> himself with a good musket or firelock..." If the
> Congress didn't think a musket or firelock was
> condusive to the militia, they wouldn't have
> specified that militiamen get those weapons.
> And I would like to see any quote from Young's
> 'famous' book to the effect that the UMA was meant
> to form a poorly-regulated militia... :-)
>
> > RR: It most
> > > assuredly wasn't talking about AK-47s, and you
> > > cannot assume that the FFs would have agreed that
> > > A) AK-47s were covered by the amendment or that B)
> > > Even if they were covered by the amendment as
> > > militia arms, that they would have been guaranteed
> > > for non-militia purposes too.
> >
> > DY: Well, let's see what some of the founding generation was demanding to
> > be protected in the way of a bill of rights:
> > "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves
> > and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing
> > game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them,
> > unless for crimes committed..."
> > Proposed in the Penn. Ratifying Convention, December 12, 1787 on behalf of
> > the antifederalist minority
> > [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.160]
> > RAY is mistaken.
>
> RR: Your quote is the opinion of just 34 men,
> written out as an afterthought to the Ratifying
> Convention. Yet you would make this small
> minority plank in just one state the BASIS for
> your entire Constitutional Argument? Young, your
> reference is irrelevant.
--