ACLU - Are no lovers of freedom or liberty

34 views
Skip to first unread message

aaron greewnood

unread,
Feb 9, 1994, 9:45:38 PM2/9/94
to
The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing
so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
political speech.

How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
Why does the ACLU lie.
Could it be that todays members no longer love the US or our
history or culture? Who are these people in todays ACLU and
are they members of special interest groups that we should be
aware of? Who is the ACLU, who the Far-King A are they?
I think they are becomming the enemy of freedom and liberty.

The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
the Second Ammendment only applied to fighting the British
during the Revolutionary War. Revisionists for sure. One
wonder how much influence leftist groups like feminists have
had on the ACLU and moving away from American values of
individual responsibilty, freedom and liberty. It may be
time to start thinking about a second revolution. I have
some quotes from some Americans on this issue. It is quite
clear the ACLU is enganged in the personal politics or their
members and not loyalty to the Bill of Rights.

Read the quotes from the following and decide for yourself it the
ACLU is dishonest.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or
overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln

I love this quote from Abraham Lincoln. My support for the Second
Amendment is summed up in this quote. As we well know Lincoln is
in agreement with the Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other Founders.
As well as others in our history to include the present time. Maybe
we should put the ACLU on notice that we will not tolerate our Rights
being "fucked" with and that the wisdom of Linclon is as meaningful
today as it was a 100 years ago.

-"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves
-back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
-manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed
-out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which
-it was passed."
- --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

-"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
-for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
-resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
- The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,
proposed Sept. 25, 1789; ratified Dec. 15, 1791.


"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty,
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
- Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"

"A constitutional right that cannot be practiced is not right at all;
it's an illusion."
- Senate Majority leader George Mitchell (D Me), January 22,
1993, in a speech to NARAL concerning abortion, but can be
used for any constitutional right.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrrany in
government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee
against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which
now appears remote to in America, that historically has proven to be
always possible."
- Senator Hubert Humphrey

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people
of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms"
- Alexander Hamilton

"The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong
moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will
generally, even if these are successful in the first instince, enable
the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Chief Justice Joseph Story

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword
because the whole body of the people are armed."
- Noah Webster

"...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and
preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would
ensue were [law-abiding citizens] deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept,
and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, as well as its interpretation by every major
commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratifi-
cation, indicates that what is protected is an individual right
of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
- Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,
97th Congress, Second Session ( February 1982 )

"Americans have a right and advantage of being armed -- unlike
the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid
to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.

"The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense .... And ... these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time."
- Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. v. Miller (1939).

"The states cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision
out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms
so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource
for maintaining public security, and disable the people from
performing their duty to general government."
- Supreme Court of the U.S., Presser v. Illinois (1886).

"... 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in
select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the
Constitution is ordained, and established by 'the people of the
the U.S.' The Second Amendment protects the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms ...."
- Supreme Court of the U.S., U.S. v. Uerdugo-Uriquidez (1990).

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be
infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of
a free country ...."
- James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

"To disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way
to enslave them ...."
- George Mason ( Framer of the Declaration of Rights, Virginia,
1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights )
3 Elliot, Debate at 380.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms ... The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in
Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover, ed., 1939).

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;
as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme
power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;
because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute
a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on
any pretense, raised in the United States."
- Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles
of the Federal Constitution" (1787), in Pamphlets on the
Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when
young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of
Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed
the Bill of Rights.

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who
is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification
of the U.S. Constitution.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is
that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights
of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who
are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ...."
- Samuel Adams, "Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements."
- Thomas Jefferson, from the Virginia Constitution, Third Draft


"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of
legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of
examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they
cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must
sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the
1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939
period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in
1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable
failure of gun laws to control serious crime."
- Orrin Hatch, 1982 Senate Report
--
Quotes first posted by:

>Stephen Burr | "Didn't you wonder why you kept getting checks
>Georgia Tech, | for doing absolutely nothing?" - Bart Simpson
>Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | "I thought it was because the Democrats were
>gt6...@prism.gatech.edu | back in power again." - Grandpa Simpson


Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 9:14:49 AM2/10/94
to
Mr. Greenwood,

Just a brief question: would you support the right of a citizen to keep
and tactical nuke in his house? Or a working Howitzer in his back yard?
Or a gross of fragmentation grenades in his store-room?

The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
and present danger to one's neighbors? Should I be held hostage to the in-
competance of my neighbor, the one with enough potential energy to raze
the block I live on?

Conan the Libertarian

--
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

JIM GRAHAM

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 9:50:43 AM2/10/94
to
In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes...

>The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
>is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing
>so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
>can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
>political speech.
>
>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>Why does the ACLU lie.
>Could it be that todays members no longer love the US or our
>history or culture? Who are these people in todays ACLU and
>are they members of special interest groups that we should be
>aware of? Who is the ACLU, who the Far-King A are they?
>I think they are becomming the enemy of freedom and liberty.
>
>The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say

Don't worry, there are those fully prepared with historical facts to
fight their lies.

>the Second Ammendment only applied to fighting the British
>during the Revolutionary War. Revisionists for sure. One
>wonder how much influence leftist groups like feminists have
>had on the ACLU and moving away from American values of

Eventually, it's inevitable.


>individual responsibilty, freedom and liberty. It may be
>time to start thinking about a second revolution. I have
>some quotes from some Americans on this issue. It is quite
>clear the ACLU is enganged in the personal politics or their
>members and not loyalty to the Bill of Rights.
>
>Read the quotes from the following and decide for yourself it the
>ACLU is dishonest.
>
> "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
> inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
> government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
> amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or
> overthrow it."
> Abraham Lincoln
>
>I love this quote from Abraham Lincoln. My support for the Second
>Amendment is summed up in this quote. As we well know Lincoln is
>in agreement with the Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other Founders.
>As well as others in our history to include the present time. Maybe
>we should put the ACLU on notice that we will not tolerate our Rights

I agree!

>being "fucked" with and that the wisdom of Linclon is as meaningful
>today as it was a 100 years ago.
>
>-"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves
>-back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
>-manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed
>-out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which

The ACLU will hate this one. It basically says that original intent

>
Jim Graham

--

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson

Note to the signature-impaired: This is not an NRA endorsement.

Jim Graham
gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu

Christopher Morton

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 12:26:13 PM2/10/94
to
As quoted from <CL0I8...@world.std.com> by r...@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker):

> Mr. Greenwood,
>
> Just a brief question: would you support the right of a citizen to keep
> and tactical nuke in his house? Or a working Howitzer in his back yard?
> Or a gross of fragmentation grenades in his store-room?

(What is this, the 10,000th time this has been asked here?)

Leave a .50 cal. watercooled machinegun and 20,000 rounds of ammo unattended
and uncared for in the weather.

Leave explosive munitions in the same conditions.

Now tell me the DIRECT hazard from each.

I propose that you learn the difference between an arm and a munition.

> The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
> defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
> safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
> and present danger to one's neighbors? Should I be held hostage to the in-
> competance of my neighbor, the one with enough potential energy to raze
> the block I live on?
>

What danger by itself does my M1 Garand present to you? Without the
conscious intervention of myself or another, NONE.

When I start storing 4.2" white phosphorus shells next door to you, you might
have a point. Until then, you're just reflecting a regrettably widespread
ignorance of firearms.

--

===================================================================
Read my lips, no new Haitians - Bill "Jethro" Clinton
===================================================================

Stilt Man

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 1:20:40 PM2/10/94
to
In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,

aaron greewnood <star...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote:
>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>Why does the ACLU lie.

Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
Let me check . . .

Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.

What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
Don't breath, be oblivious!

Lee S Wilfinger

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 1:40:57 PM2/10/94
to
In article <CL0Kp...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,

JIM GRAHAM <gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes...

>>

>>The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
>
>Don't worry, there are those fully prepared with historical facts to
>fight their lies.

True. Still, it remains to be seen how well those with the facts will
be able to spread their information. If the media doesn't choose to
sell ad space to pro-gun groups, we're in trouble.

-Lee

Keith Emmen

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 1:58:01 PM2/10/94
to
Robert J. Kolker (r...@world.std.com) wrote:

: The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-


: defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
: safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
: and present danger to one's neighbors?

The possesion of arms for self-defense becomes an issue of safety when
the possesor uses the arms in an unsafe manner. I can't think of an
example when mere possesion of guns becomes a clear and present danger
to anyone. The only time "possesion" becomes a "clear and present
danger" is if the possesed substance is unstable enough that it can
harm someone with no human intervention. The key is that the human
must *do* something for a weapon to be a threat.

You mentioned the scenario of your neighbor having a tactical nuke.
I've got news for you. I have a neighbor with a tactical nuke. As
the matter of fact he has a *lot* of them. He keeps them at Mountain
Home Air Force Base, Idaho Nuclear Engineering Labs, and several other
places in fairly close proximity to me. How safe do I feel? I guess I
don't feel like I need to build a bomb shelter. If some of those nukes
were in the hands of law-abiding citizens, I still wouldn't be building
a shelter. Actually, with the direction this country is moving, I feel
more of a threat coming from the government than from my gun-owning
neighbors. There are tactical nukes all over this country. How safe
do you feel?

: Conan the Libertarian

I thought one of the characteristics of libertarians was to leave others
alone to enjoy their rights. Most libertarians wouldn't try to remove
my rights unless I was violating theirs.

Keith (also libertarian) Emmen

Bill Meyers

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 3:25:51 PM2/10/94
to
In article <CL0I8...@world.std.com> r...@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
[ ... ]

>Just a brief question: would you support the right of a citizen to keep
>and tactical nuke in his house? Or a working Howitzer in his back yard?
>Or a gross of fragmentation grenades in his store-room?
>
>The question is this: at what point does the possesion of arms for self-
>defense (which no reasonable person would gainsay) become an issue of
>safety, whereby the mere possession of infernal machines becomes a clear
>and present danger to one's neighbors? Should I be held hostage to the in-

This isn't about your neighbors asking you to cool it.
It's about whether the G-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t can decide.


>Conan the Libertarian
^^^^^^^^^^^
No sh*t? Have you read the party platform lately?

BTW, I support Salman Rushdie's right to keep and bear
a private nuke, for self-defense against Iran ... :-)

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 3:45:50 PM2/10/94
to
k...@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:


>The possesion of arms for self-defense becomes an issue of safety when
>the possesor uses the arms in an unsafe manner. I can't think of an
>example when mere possesion of guns becomes a clear and present danger
>to anyone. The only time "possesion" becomes a "clear and present
>danger" is if the possesed substance is unstable enough that it can
>harm someone with no human intervention. The key is that the human
>must *do* something for a weapon to be a threat.

In the case of any high energy nuclear device that uses uranium
or plutoniam, the issue of (1) radioactive leakage and (2)
appropriate safegaurds to prevent triggering naturally emerge.

Hell, if someone were storing nitroglycerine, I think I have the
right to know if they are taking the proper precautions against
sudden rises in termperature or jiggling.

Your insistence that the danger arise from purely accidental factors
rather than human intervention is unreasonable. What about human
stupidity. That is as much a force of nature as a tornado. Ask the
people near Chernobyl whether an earthquake or drunken technicians
are more dangerous.


>You mentioned the scenario of your neighbor having a tactical nuke.
>I've got news for you. I have a neighbor with a tactical nuke. As
>the matter of fact he has a *lot* of them. He keeps them at Mountain
>Home Air Force Base, Idaho Nuclear Engineering Labs, and several other
>places in fairly close proximity to me. How safe do I feel? I guess I
>don't feel like I need to build a bomb shelter. If some of those nukes
>were in the hands of law-abiding citizens, I still wouldn't be building
>a shelter. Actually, with the direction this country is moving, I feel
>more of a threat coming from the government than from my gun-owning
>neighbors. There are tactical nukes all over this country. How safe
>do you feel?

You and I share the same distrust of government. However I was
raisinq a question of safety. The same question could just as
easily arise in an anarchic social order. THe generic question
is to what extent are we free to impose hazards on our neighbors?

There is a matter of degree here. We permit the shipping of volatile
petrol over the public highways. All we ask in exchange is a reasonable
assurance that the tank vehicles don't leak and the drivers know
what they are doing. This is not a radical attack on liberty as much
as it is a defense against the incompetence of our neighbors.

>: Conan the Libertarian

>I thought one of the characteristics of libertarians was to leave others
>alone to enjoy their rights. Most libertarians wouldn't try to remove
>my rights unless I was violating theirs.

The excessive hazard (excessive is a matter of discussion and debate)
that A inadvertantly imposes on B at some point ceases to be a
right and becomes defacto aggression. I claim it is *my* right not
to be put in danger of life and limb by blantant negligence and
incompetence which exists both in the prive sector and government.
The problem is when government does it we have been betrayed by
the latter who are supposed to protect us from the former.

PS. If my neighbor really must have a nuke, (I know not what for)
is it unreasonable to ask him to cart it to the middle of a desert
far from human habitation? Good geiger counters make good neighbors.

>Keith (also libertarian) Emmen

David Veal

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 3:47:58 PM2/10/94
to

>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
>aaron greewnood <star...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote:
>>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>>Why does the ACLU lie.

>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>Let me check . . .

>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.

>What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?

*Cough*. Organizing and training as an armed body tends to
be rather ... illegal ... in most places.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal University of Tennessee, Division of Continuing Education
E-Mail: ve...@gateway.ce.utk.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 5:34:59 PM2/10/94
to
cm...@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
......snip....

>What danger by itself does my M1 Garand present to you? Without the
>conscious intervention of myself or another, NONE.
I have no argument with you or your M1. I have a Lee-Enfield
.303 @ home. The points I rased pertained to safety, not the
RTKBA.

>When I start storing 4.2" white phosphorus shells next door to you, you might
>have a point. Until then, you're just reflecting a regrettably widespread
>ignorance of firearms.

We are in violent agreement. You are bringing up exactly the point
I was trying to make. I will say it again for the record. I have
no argument with people who want weapons for self defense or sport
or for the joy of collecting them. For the record also, I know the
difference between a single-shot, semi-automatic, and automatic
rifle. Guns per se do not bother me any more than automobiles
per se, even theough the misuse of either can bring blood &
death.

>--

>===================================================================
> Read my lips, no new Haitians - Bill "Jethro" Clinton
>===================================================================

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 5:37:22 PM2/10/94
to
mey...@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:

> No sh*t? Have you read the party platform lately?

Not a party member. Sorry.

> BTW, I support Salman Rushdie's right to keep and bear
> a private nuke, for self-defense against Iran ... :-)

So do I, but not next door to me.

Jacqueline U. Robertson

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 6:31:05 PM2/10/94
to
>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes...
>>The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
>>is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing
>>so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
>>can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
>>political speech.


Look at the bright side: by advocating repeal, at LEAST there is an admission
if what the second guarantees. This is a LOT better grounds to fight on.
Look at how our fourth amendment rights have been stripped by the more
circuitious approach that has been taken by the DEA and the courts.


James A. Robertson

<note that I am posting through my wife's account. I don't claim to speak for
her>

aaron greewnood

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 6:37:45 PM2/10/94
to
In article <2jebfm...@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>,
Mark Langenbahn - SE Southern Ohio <ma...@f22.Central.Sun.COM> wrote:
-"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
-a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
-shall not be infringed."
- - The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,
- proposed Sept. 25, 1789; ratified Dec. 15, 1791.

-I think the new interpretation that the ACLU is going to use is that
-the second amendmend protects us from the government going around and
-cutting off our arms. Also, we are given the right to wear short sleeve
-shirts if we want. Note that "bare" was misspelled. :)
-
-Lets think up some creative ways to re-interpret the 1st amendment!!!
>
Is the ACLU a tax free organization? If they engange in politics can we
go after their tax free status?

ajg

Mitchell Berg

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 7:36:26 PM2/10/94
to


> The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
> is to go for repeal.

Not technically true - they can favor encumbering the right to the point where
it's meaningless - sort of like our protections against unreasonable search and
seizure are becoming...

> They put other Rights in danger by doing
> so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
> can go after the First.

Happens all the time. From the left a n d the right.

> The argument can be made it ONLY covers
> political speech.

Although several precedents reject that claim. (no, Furlong, I can't cite them.
So sue me.)

>
> How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
> Why does the ACLU lie.

Just a second here. First of all, the ACLU isn't necessarily the devil in this
situation. They are (see related posting elsewhere in todays news) in many
places deadlocked on the issue, with a significant number of their membership
favoring a true, civil-liberties approach to the 2A.

As for those members of the ACLU that wish to attack the 2a and RKBA - well, the
first amendment protects them, too.

> Could it be that todays members no longer love the US or our
> history or culture?

Hang on. I'm not a member, and I've been just as outraged as any of you at some
of the causes they've championed.

But whacking on the ACLU is just as pointless and misguided as demonizing the
media. The fact that some, or even the majority, of both institutions may oppose
our [correct] interpretation of the 2A doesn't mean that they're unamerican -
that they don't love our country or its culture. They're just wrong.

It is, rather, up to us to refute them, point by point. We, the RKBA crowd,
must meet them:

1) With the strength of our logic (we don't need to lie or distort -
the uncooked figures support us.) Know your facts. Never
back down.

2) With our legal precedent - no anti-2a arguments surfaced until
this century, and they are based on incorrect/false
interpretations of our law. Look - your list of quotes is
an indication that RKBA is a right generally held by the people,
as in "look at the ninth amendment too!"

3) With the strength of our numbers - organizing and voting down
every anti-RKBA measure we can. Defeating and recalling
Anti-RKBA legislators. Packing public hearings, and providing
the infrastructure (information, schedule dissemination) to do
so. L e a r n i n g the issue, and speaking/testifying at
public hearings a r t i c u l a t e l y. (Its YOUR right, too.
And don't give me any bullshit about stage fright. You speak
below about staging a second revolution (armed?) but you can't
go in front of a dinky little microphone in front of a crowd of
onlookers? Suck up your guts!)

4) With our dollars - boycott every company that donates to HCI
and their ilk. (The list has been posted on this net. Research,
find more offending companies, and GET THE WORD OUT!) Encourage
(verbally, and in writing, as well as with your business) any
companies that are pro-RKBA, and encourage your friends/
relatives to patronize them too.

5) With your brain - buy a gun, LEARN TO USE IT, learn not
to shoot yourself in the foot literally as well as rhetorically.
BE one of that vast majority we're always talking about - the
law-abiding, safety-conscious shooter that must be the background
of this movement.

This, rather than attacking the "americanism" of our opponents, is how we will
win.

> Who are these people in todays ACLU and
> are they members of special interest groups that we should be
> aware of?

Ironic - the ACLU's big screed is guarding AGAINST a return to McCarthyism. What
you just said sounded like something from a House Unamerican Activities Committee
transcript - speaking of violations of the constitution!

Of *course* they are members of other special interest groups. Just as you may
be a member of both the ACLU and the NRA - pay your dues to both and find out.
Either way, it's their right, as well as yours.


> Who is the ACLU, who the Far-King A are they?


Citizens. Just like the media, and you, and me. (Far-King? What the Flock does
that mean? I feel like I stepped into an A-Team episode. Holy Spit.)

> I think they are becomming the enemy of freedom and liberty.

No. They disagree with us. It is up to us to refute them, or, better yet,
change their minds. (It does happen, you know...) Either way, that IS the
American way.


>
> The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say
> the Second Ammendment only applied to fighting the British
> during the Revolutionary War.

Have they? I've heard that that's a State ACLU project. At any rate, they're
exercising their First Amendment right.

EXERCISE YOURS! Write the editor of the paper carrying the ad. (a SHORT, to the
point letter). Organize a march on ACLU HQ (and it'd better be a peaceful one,
or you'll be proving the antis point. Disinvite any of your violent friends...)
Organize a boycott. PUBLICIZE IT! We have the same rights they do!

> Revisionists for sure. One
> wonder how much influence leftist groups like feminists have
> had on the ACLU and moving away from American values of
> individual responsibilty, freedom and liberty.

Was it the feminists that had them defend the Nazis marching in Skokie (1980?), or
the Nazis right to use public school space for their meetings?

At any rate - as I said above, you have the same rights they do - speech,
assembly, press - so go to it. Get to the people before the ACLU do.

> It may be
> time to start thinking about a second revolution.

Yes. But let's try an intellectual/moral revolution first, OK? I have three
kids, and while I'm willing to risk my life for the democracy I believe in, let's
not jump the gun here. So to speak.

> I have
> some quotes from some Americans on this issue.


And they're great ones - should be required reading for everyone on both sides of
this debate.

> It is quite
> clear the ACLU is enganged in the personal politics or their
> members and not loyalty to the Bill of Rights.

a) Of course they're engaged in their personal politics. Any
group will be, including the NRA. It's just that the NRA is
pretty monolithic - they're not overly concerned with the part of
the consitution before or after the Second Amendment. The ACLU
is a bit more complex - and, yes, I disagree with them much of
the time.

But "they" have the same right to "personal politics" that
you do.

b) It depends on how you define loyalty. They've spoken for the
First/Third/Fourth/Ninth/***th amendment rights of a lot of
people that I would never support (Nazis, flag-burners, Klansmen,)
at first glance. On further review, I realized that they
were right - if we don't defend the rights of the worst among
us, who will defend the rest of us?

We, (RKBAers) are not the worst among us - far from it. We
have an agenda. So does the ACLU. Both are valid, at least
to a point. It is our job to change their minds, or at least
nullify the impact of any campaign they m a y mount to
screw with the 2A.
>
Mitch Berg

---------
The opinions expressed above are not those of whatever company I'm
working for this week.

This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning
that America's gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian
night: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."
While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde,
violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold
equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word
processors, and television cameras. The Republic depends upon fervent
devotion to all our fundamental rights.
Jeffrey Snyder,
"A Nation of Cowards"
published in "The Public Interest"

C. D. Tavares

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 8:38:54 PM2/10/94
to
In article <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) writes:

> Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
> Let me check . . .

> Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
> an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.

> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?

Apparently, not supporting public funding of reading comprehension programs.

I`m unconvinced that a person having such difficulty in understanding plain
English is worth debating. "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms"
doesn't even remotely resemble "the right to gather as an armed militia
and be able to protect yourself from standing armies."

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly
before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military
forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country,
might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow
citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their
right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe, in
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.)

Followups.
--

c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

aaron greewnood

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 9:02:57 PM2/10/94
to
In article <2jdv3p$b...@usenet.rpi.edu>,

Lee S Wilfinger <lswi...@remus.ral.rpi.edu> wrote:
>In article <CL0Kp...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>JIM GRAHAM <gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes...

->>The ACLU has annouced they will be putting out ads that say

->Don't worry, there are those fully prepared with historical facts to
->fight their lies.

-True. Still, it remains to be seen how well those with the facts will
-be able to spread their information. If the media doesn't choose to
-sell ad space to pro-gun groups, we're in trouble.
>
What about sending out mailers to target groups, ie people who vote. There is
always radio. Talk Radio has over 40 million listeners why couldn't the NRA or
other groups put on ad's that question the loyalty to the Bill of Rights of the
ACLU by quoting their lies then quoting the founders and other notable Americans.

ajg.

Stilt Man

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 9:15:43 PM2/10/94
to
In article <VEAL.544...@gateway.ce.utk.edu>,

David Veal <VE...@gateway.ce.utk.edu> wrote:
>In article <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) writes:
>>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>>Let me check . . .
>
>>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.
>
> *Cough*. Organizing and training as an armed body tends to
>be rather ... illegal ... in most places.

The exact wording of the Second Amendment on this subject is "well-regulated
militia." The national guards qualify as such, and are indeed militias in
the old sense of the word. Street gangs and lynch mobs, on the other hand,
are not. The NRA could theoretically declare itself to be a militia, but
aside from that, there is no premise behind most of their arguments with
respect to the Second Amendment.

aaron greewnood

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 9:45:05 PM2/10/94
to
In article <2je4ma$a...@nic.umass.edu>,
James R Cork <JIM...@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU> wrote:
>In <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu writes:

>> Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>> Let me check . . .

>> Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>> an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.

>> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?

> Maybe if you read the whole article (not just the first two lines)
>you would've gotten the point: that the Bill of Rights guarantees the right
>to bear arms not only to protect the general public from foreign armies, but
>from people in OUR government who would try to take away their rights.

> You might recall that just before Castro came out of the Commie
>Closet he disarmed the people of Cuba. Even if Clinton isn't quite as
>kooky as Castro, can we afford to take that chance?
>Jim

Exactly, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or
even home protection. It is a right that goes far beyond the day to
day living of one's life. It is protection against political tyranny.
In the quotes that went with the original article is is easy to see
that the Founders clearly intended that citizens to be armed.

With our country being in political turmoil by two significant groups
at such odds with each other and no resolution in sight one cannot help
but think the side that is more willing to die for their beliefs will
in the end dominate the other. I wouldn't be surprised if the future
held a chance of civil war or violent decay of our society because
leftists and their passion for state control to force us all to
live as they think we should.

On one side are people who seek freedom and liberty and will pay the
price to keep it. On the other are the leftists, radical feminists
and others who seek state control to see that "THEIR" ideas are
enforced. In a free socieity the government stays out of the personal
lives of people and their business. In a free society people talk
with each other and if they like their idea the change. We don't need
no 'stiking government and lawyers' deciding how we will live.

I wouldn't put it past leftists if they got control of the police and
military as well as got our guns to build reeducation camps for all
don't agree with their notions of life. Just the sort of
people the Founders had in mind when they wrote the second Ammendment.

ajg

aaron greewnood

unread,
Feb 10, 1994, 9:49:04 PM2/10/94
to

>> Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>> Let me check . . .

>> Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>> an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.

>> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?

> Maybe if you read the whole article (not just the first two lines)


>you would've gotten the point: that the Bill of Rights guarantees the right
>to bear arms not only to protect the general public from foreign armies, but
>from people in OUR government who would try to take away their rights.

> You might recall that just before Castro came out of the Commie
>Closet he disarmed the people of Cuba. Even if Clinton isn't quite as
>kooky as Castro, can we afford to take that chance?
>Jim

Exactly, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or
even home protection. It is a right that goes far beyond the day to
day living of one's life. It is protection against political tyranny.
In the quotes that went with the original article is is easy to see
that the Founders clearly intended that citizens to be armed.

With our country being in political turmoil by two significant groups
at such odds with each other and no resolution in sight one cannot help
but think the side that is more willing to die for their beliefs will
in the end dominate the other. I wouldn't be surprised if the future
held a chance of civil war or violent decay of our society because
leftists and their passion for state control to force us all to
live as they think we should.

On one side are people who love freedom and liberty and will pay the

Stilt Man

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 12:56:45 AM2/11/94
to
In article <2jenje$j...@transfer.stratus.com>,

C. D. Tavares <c...@sw.stratus.com> wrote:
>> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
>
>Apparently, not supporting public funding of reading comprehension programs.
>

Well, let's see here . . .

"A free and well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of the
states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

I believe that the exact wording of the Second Amendment is something to
that effect. I'm typing that up from memory, so I'm not entirely sure
whether that's the exact wording, but I am entirely sure that it's close.

You will notice that the main point at the beginning of the Amendment is
"well-regulated militia." The NRA makes the pretense that this Amendment
is only about people keeping weaponry, with no qualifications on it. That
is very simply not the case. The Amendment clearly qualifies that right
as stating that the people have the right to gather together in a well-
regulated, armed and free militia. It is in this context that the "keep and
bear arms" clause of the Amendment is stated. The NRA and the rest of the
pro-gun lobby in this country today attempts to change the context in order
to make their cause seem righteous. If they were to form a well-regulated
militia, then I'd be all for their cause. But every Joe and Jerry off the
street having a gun in their home is clearly not the context in which the
"keep and bear arms" clause of the Second Amendment was stated.

__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|

Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped.
--Groucho Marx

John De Armond

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 5:18:43 AM2/11/94
to
star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:

>The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
>is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing
>so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
>can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
>political speech.


1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.

An even better case can be made that the 1st only applies to
Congress, and by incorporation of the 14th, to state congresses,
and nothing else, per the 9th and 10th amendments. After all
"Congress shall make no law" is about as specific in only
restricting Congress as "shall not be infringed" is in saying NOTHING,
nadda, no government regulation of arms is legal.

>Read the quotes from the following and decide for yourself it the
>ACLU is dishonest.

> "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
> inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
> government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
> amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or
> overthrow it."
> Abraham Lincoln

>I love this quote from Abraham Lincoln. My support for the Second
>Amendment is summed up in this quote. As we well know Lincoln is
>in agreement with the Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other Founders.
>As well as others in our history to include the present time. Maybe
>we should put the ACLU on notice that we will not tolerate our Rights
>being "fucked" with and that the wisdom of Linclon is as meaningful
>today as it was a 100 years ago.

Before you get too goo-goo-eyed over Lincoln, I should remind you that
Lincoln was the bastard who waged war against the South when it tried
to do exactly that. I'd hesitate to quote anything Lincoln said in
the context of individual rights. The only intelligent thing he did
was to stop that bullet.

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion

"Dr. Kevorkian, please report to the Oval Office."

Andrew Rogers

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 6:20:57 AM2/11/94
to
In article <2jegg9$4...@galaxy.ucr.edu> star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:
>Is the ACLU a tax free organization?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the answer is no.

>If they engage in politics can we go after their tax free status?

Ask that question to the Catholic Church.

AWR

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 8:00:56 AM2/11/94
to
star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:


>Exactly, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or
>even home protection. It is a right that goes far beyond the day to
>day living of one's life. It is protection against political tyranny.
>In the quotes that went with the original article is is easy to see
>that the Founders clearly intended that citizens to be armed.

>With our country being in political turmoil by two significant groups
>at such odds with each other and no resolution in sight one cannot help
>but think the side that is more willing to die for their beliefs will
>in the end dominate the other. I wouldn't be surprised if the future
>held a chance of civil war or violent decay of our society because
>leftists and their passion for state control to force us all to
>live as they think we should.

>On one side are people who seek freedom and liberty and will pay the
>price to keep it. On the other are the leftists, radical feminists

Just a minute, bub! The majority of people are in NEITHER
camp. The vast bulk of the American citizenry:(1) do not think
government is evil (they are wrong); (2) do not perceive them
selves as being enslaved (they are are wrong). But you are
wrong to put them in the role of active pro tyrannists. Your
burden is to convice these folks that they ought to value
their liberty AND that the government as it currently is is no
friend to their liberty. Once you have their attention and can
convince them it is so, maybe the RKBA will not be in such peril
AND maybe such an informed citizenry can bring an end to the cloying
welfare state.

>and others who seek state control to see that "THEIR" ideas are
>enforced. In a free socieity the government stays out of the personal
>lives of people and their business. In a free society people talk
>with each other and if they like their idea the change. We don't need
>no 'stiking government and lawyers' deciding how we will live.

And demonizing the vast bulk of your countrymen is counterproductive.

>I wouldn't put it past leftists if they got control of the police and
>military as well as got our guns to build reeducation camps for all
>don't agree with their notions of life. Just the sort of
>people the Founders had in mind when they wrote the second Ammendment.

That is the sort of paranoid, survivalist crapdoodle that will
delegitimize your valid points. The government doesn't need
re-education camps to screw us, they can tax and regulate us to
death. Our enemy is not a fierce devil, it is a no-ball burocrat.
The good folks of this country are being gummed to death by ducks.

When we go down the drain (if we are not yet down the drain) the
first ammendment will be fully intact. The 2-nd, 4-th, 5-th
and 9-th will be effectively rescinded. The main sin of the ACLU
is that they don't take the 9-th ammendment as seriously as it
was intended. As soon as people buy the notion that *rights* are
granted by the government, they are already disarmed regardless of
whether they can have guns or not.
>ajg

Conan the Libertarian

Mitchell Berg

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 8:20:21 AM2/11/94
to

In article <CL10C...@world.std.com>, r...@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
> k...@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:
>
>
> >The possesion of arms for self-defense becomes an issue of safety when
> >the possesor uses the arms in an unsafe manner. I can't think of an
> >example when mere possesion of guns becomes a clear and present danger
> >to anyone. The only time "possesion" becomes a "clear and present
> >danger" is if the possesed substance is unstable enough that it can
> >harm someone with no human intervention. The key is that the human
> >must *do* something for a weapon to be a threat.
>
> In the case of any high energy nuclear device that uses uranium
> or plutoniam, the issue of (1) radioactive leakage and (2)
> appropriate safegaurds to prevent triggering naturally emerge.

Back to guns for a moment, if I may -

Bullets dont' commonly leak.

Just thought I'd point that out. |-(


>
> Hell, if someone were storing nitroglycerine, I think I have the
> right to know if they are taking the proper precautions against
> sudden rises in termperature or jiggling.

And you do. Explosives are both

a) regulated (more or less illegal for most of us)

b) *possibly* not covered by the second amendment. If you
adopt the "Militia Weapons" approach to the 2A, you might
figure that the average private soldier doesn't normally
carry explosives. (except hand grenades? Jeez, this is
complicated)


>
> Your insistence that the danger arise from purely accidental factors
> rather than human intervention is unreasonable. What about human
> stupidity. That is as much a force of nature as a tornado. Ask the
> people near Chernobyl whether an earthquake or drunken technicians
> are more dangerous.

That's true - combine an idiot and a gun, and you have a problem.

The same goes for combining:

Idiots and Free Speech (flag burning)
Idiots and Freedom of Religion (ultrafundamentalists/ultra-atheists)
Idiots and Freedom of Assembly (Congress)
Idiots and Freedom of the Press ("Dateline NBC", "Current Affair",
the U of M "Minnesota Daily")
Idiots and the entire bill of rights (William Kunstler)

JIM GRAHAM

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 11:05:29 AM2/11/94
to
In article <2jdv3p$b...@usenet.rpi.edu>, lswi...@remus.ral.rpi.edu (Lee S Wilfinger) writes...

Pro-constitution groups also count. One doesn't need to be considered
a gun-fanatic to be considered a patriot.

One thing that can be done, and perhaps the most effective, is at the
local level. Most local newspapers have a letters to the editor
section. They rarely (in my experience) show bias by excluding articles
they don't like.

Many newspapers also allow for "guest" editorials, written by "ordinary"
members of the community.

At least it's a start, and I've done so here.

aaron greewnood

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 1:29:59 PM2/11/94
to
In article <2jgb99...@calamari.hi.com>,

Andrew Rogers <rog...@calamari.hi.com> wrote:
>In article <2jegg9$4...@galaxy.ucr.edu> star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:
>>Is the ACLU a tax free organization?

>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the answer is no.

Not a buble but a question. A good question if you are looking
for ways to fight for your Rights against an organization that
is infested with people who seem like they prefer their own
personal politics to the notions that our country was founded on.

To take out ads in newspapers for propaganda and lies shows a
corrupt group. The quotes given by Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams
and others show clearly the Second Ammendment was created to
give the people protection from tyranny of government. Lie all
you want but it does not change the statement and arguments of
the men who created the docutment know as the Bill Of Rights.

If the ACLU was honest and upright they would admit they don't
believe in the Bill Of Rights except when it fits their leftist
politics. If they were really honest they would promote the
repeal of the Second Ammendment instead of being liars and dishonest
people. But they know repeal would not happen. They don't give
a shit about the Bill Of Rights when their actions show that
they hold it in contempt. Just educated scum.

>>If they engage in politics can we go after their tax free status?

>Ask that question to the Catholic Church.

What is that suppose to mean? If they were tax exempt meaning
that those who contribute get a decduction I would want to see
that deduction taken away from people.

I still say if anyoune knows when and where these public education
meetings are to take place to post it. We should go down in
significant numbers and protest, pass out pampthlets with quotes
from the founders to show their lies. We should do everything we
can to upset their plans with legal protest. Just the way the
leftist upset and disrupt meetings. Tit for tat should be part
of the battle plan to combat the leftists who hold the Bill Of
Rights in contempt.

ajg.
>
>AWR


David Casseres

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 1:40:45 PM2/11/94
to
[aaron greewnood wrote]

>>>The only way for the ACLU to oppose the Sceond Ammendment
>>>is to go for repeal. They put other Rights in danger by doing

>>>so. If one group can go after the Second then I suppose others
>>>can go after the First. The argument can be made it ONLY covers
>>>political speech.

[James Robertson wrote]

>Look at the bright side: by advocating repeal, at LEAST there is an admission
>if what the second guarantees. This is a LOT better grounds to fight on.
>Look at how our fourth amendment rights have been stripped by the more
>circuitious approach that has been taken by the DEA and the courts.

Before the Bullshit Boulevard is completely flooded with the statement that
the ACLU advocates repeal of the Second Amendment, thus admitting that it
guarantees individual gun rights, let me point out that the ACLU *does not*
advocate repeal. It advocates an interpretation of the Second Amendment that
some of us disagree with -- specifically, it claims in so many words that the
Second Amendment doesn't guarantee individual gun rights.

Just the facts, ma'am.

-------------

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Larry M. Jordan

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 5:11:53 PM2/11/94
to
In article <2jerfh$3...@galaxy.ucr.edu> star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:
[snip]

>
>Exactly, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or
>even home protection. It is a right that goes far beyond the day to
>day living of one's life. It is protection against political tyranny.
>In the quotes that went with the original article is is easy to see
>that the Founders clearly intended that citizens to be armed.
>
I'm afraid many don't care what the "founders' intent" was.

If the Court can turn the establishment clause of the 1st amendment on
its head and make it mean something clearly unintended by the founders,
what is to prevent the Court from taking similar liberties with the 2nd
amendment?

It's really disturbing. The executive branch is currently anti-2nd.
The Congress is about to show its colors in the Omnibus Crime Bill.
How long will it be before the Court speaks? I don't have much faith
in the Court. If all three branches are corrupt, what then?

How does one communicate the import of what's happen w.r.t. 2nd amendment
to a population that's in 'condition white' as far as their freedom is
concerned and not be branded an 'alarmist'?


[snip]

--Larry

Greg Finn

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 9:37:29 AM2/11/94
to

Well, let's see here . . .

"A free and well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of the
states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

I believe that the exact wording of the Second Amendment is something to
that effect. I'm typing that up from memory, so I'm not entirely sure
whether that's the exact wording, but I am entirely sure that it's close.

You will notice that the main point at the beginning of the Amendment is
"well-regulated militia." The NRA makes the pretense that this Amendment
is only about people keeping weaponry, with no qualifications on it. That
is very simply not the case. The Amendment clearly qualifies that right
as stating that the people have the right to gather together in a well-
regulated, armed and free militia. It is in this context that the "keep and
bear arms" clause of the Amendment is stated.

Well, let's see here ...

To put it simply, you know next to nothing about the subject matter.

When you have read something about the historical development of the
amendment in question, are aware of what the framers wrote about it,
and what was reported at the time of the constitutional convention on
the subject, then ... and only then ... will you have an informed
opinion.

Until then you are just one more in a mass of opinionated individuals
who don't know what they are talking about. While you have the right
to an opinion, don't confuse that with having an informed opinion.

As to your grammatical argument it is:

(a) Wrong. The intial clause is a justification, not a restriction.
(b) Your interpretation disagrees with the published
interpretations at the time the amendment was written, and with the
interpretation of the framer of the 14th amendment, which was
passed a century later to prevent disarming of blacks during
Reconstruction, among other reasons.

If this makes you angry enough to go out and do some studying on the
subject ... fine. Let me recommend a nice encyclopoedic study book
for you that contains 65 pages of citations and 195 pages of dissertation:

Stephen Halbrook
That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right
Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1984.

When you are finished reading ... you will have developed an informed
opinion ... and then by all means make an argument as to what you
believe the amendment means. At that point your argument will
probably be a good one, based upon some knowledge of the subject.
--

Keith Emmen

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 5:56:41 PM2/11/94
to
Stilt Man (fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu) wrote:
: The Amendment clearly qualifies that right

: as stating that the people have the right to gather together in a well-
: regulated, armed and free militia. It is in this context that the "keep and
: bear arms" clause of the Amendment is stated.

Sorry Stilts, but there are folks quite skilled in the English
language that disagree. The following was posted by a fellow
named Rolf Nelson. I saved it for an occasion such as this.

----------- Begin Rolf's posting----------

===
Preface: To find out what the text of the Second Amendment really means,
one should go to an expert of grammar. So, a person called on one, and
this was the summary/response.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three
decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching
journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column
dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and
Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary,
and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.
Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus,"
has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and
is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

[That sounds like an expert to me.]

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I
sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert
in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect
to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be
restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and
intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely
become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second
Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional
opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation,
and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment,
then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and
task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe
it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second
Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political
importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms
for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of
our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other
political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into
which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary
to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited
in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather
than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which
is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and
bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere
or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with
respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'
granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment
assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely
state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence
is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved
inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned
upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the
security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the
statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to
keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence
of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the
right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia
as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep
and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place
conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right
deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as
previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated
militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,'
or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;'
this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed
meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but
not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors,
unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning
of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were
written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate
it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to
the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way
the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;

and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people
to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the
amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the
possibility of a restricted interpretation."

[(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational
reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author,
The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.]

________
[Editorial comment, from the author]

So..... The Amendment did not CREATE (or even claim to create) the "right" to
keep and bear arms -- it said that the citizens HAD that right, and that the
importance of militias were such that the government was forbidden to infringe
on it. The right was not "created" for the purpose of state militias -- the
government was forbidden from screwing with it because of the importance of militias.

Keith Emmen

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 6:17:36 PM2/11/94
to
Robert J. Kolker (r...@world.std.com) wrote:
: k...@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:

: Hell, if someone were storing nitroglycerine, I think I have the


: right to know if they are taking the proper precautions against
: sudden rises in termperature or jiggling.

Um, I'm not sure you do have that right. I know that no one has ever
informed me that they had explosives, let alone how they were storing
or handling them. Maybe they do have the responsibility to tell me,
but I don't think they are *required* to.

: THe generic question


: is to what extent are we free to impose hazards on our neighbors?

I think we are free to do as we please until we actually harm someone.
There are lots of folks out there who impose a hazard on me when they
drive their cars, but I can't stop them from driving until they actually
do some harm.

: The excessive hazard (excessive is a matter of discussion and debate)


: that A inadvertantly imposes on B at some point ceases to be a
: right and becomes defacto aggression.

And when it becomes aggression, we can do something about it, but we
can't stop someone from doing something until they actually violate
someone else's right. Are you really saying that the gun in my home
or pocket is an aggression against you?

: I claim it is *my* right not


: to be put in danger of life and limb by blantant negligence and
: incompetence which exists both in the prive sector and government.

So I should be able to prevent you from driving a car because it's *my*
right not to be put in danger of life an limb by your car?

: The problem is when government does it we have been betrayed by


: the latter who are supposed to protect us from the former.

Sorry. I don't buy into the argument that the government is supposed
to protect me.

Keith Emmen

David Casseres

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 6:39:07 PM2/11/94
to
In article <2jgir7$e...@galaxy.ucr.edu> aaron greewnood,

star...@galaxy.ucr.edu writes:
>If the ACLU was honest and upright they would admit they don't
>believe in the Bill Of Rights except when it fits their leftist
>politics. If they were really honest they would promote the
>repeal of the Second Ammendment instead of being liars and dishonest
>people. But they know repeal would not happen. They don't give
>a shit about the Bill Of Rights when their actions show that
>they hold it in contempt. Just educated scum.

As a matter of fact the ACLU has stood up for the rights of a lot of
individuals and organizations on the Right.

You should get a clue, Mr. Greewnood: it is possible to support gun rights
without making a fool of yourself by trying to trash the ACLU, an organization
that has more integrity than you do.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 7:00:15 PM2/11/94
to
In article <2jf6mt...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt
Man) writes:
> "A free and well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of
^^^^^^^^ [Extra words] [Security] ^^^^^^^
> the states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
^^^^^^^^^^ [A free state]

> infringed."
>
> I believe that the exact wording of the Second Amendment is something
> to that effect. I'm typing that up from memory, so I'm not entirely
> sure whether that's the exact wording, but I am entirely sure that it's
> close.

Close, but not quite.

> You will notice that the main point at the beginning of the Amendment
> is "well-regulated militia." The NRA makes the pretense that this
> Amendment is only about people keeping weaponry, with no qualifications
> on it. That is very simply not the case. The Amendment clearly
> qualifies that right as stating that the people have the right to
> gather together in a well- regulated, armed and free militia. It is in
> this context that the "keep and bear arms" clause of the Amendment is
> stated. The NRA and the rest of the pro-gun lobby in this country
> today attempts to change the context in order to make their cause seem
> righteous. If they were to form a well-regulated militia, then I'd be
> all for their cause. But every Joe and Jerry off the street having a
> gun in their home is clearly not the context in which the "keep and
> bear arms" clause of the Second Amendment was stated.

You are probably going to be flamed in the coming days for that opinion.

Remember, the right mentioned in the second is not the right to be in a
militia, it's the right to keep and bear arms. It is not the right of the
militia to keep and bear arms, it is the right of the people. These are
significant points to remember.

The first part of the sentence is a dependant clause, taken alone, it does
not make a complete sentence. The second part of the sentence is the
independant clause, and does stand on it's own. I find the easiest way to
figure out what it means is to mentally add the word "Because" to the
beginning of it.

[Because] a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Well-regulated means properly functioning and accurate in the language of the
time (fine timepeices were said to have 6 position regulation, for example.
A double barrelled shotgun is well-regulated if the barrels both shoot the
same target.). The idea is that if people have guns and know how to use
them, they can form an effective militia when the congress calls them out.


--
What part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
"Ride a motorcycle. Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces,
The Environment, and Money. Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!"
Rich Chandler, DoD #296


Clayton Cramer

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 7:54:09 PM2/11/94
to
In article <2jdtto...@flop.engr.orst.edu>,

Stilt Man <fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu> wrote:
>In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
>aaron greewnood <star...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote:
>>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>>Why does the ACLU lie.
>
>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>Let me check . . .
>
>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.

You must have the ACLU copy of the Constitution. The text doesn't
that at all. It gives the reason, but it doesn't say, "right of the
people when operating as a militia" nor does it say, "right of the
state," it says, "right of the people" -- just like it says with
reference to the other individual rights protected by the Bill of
Rights.

>What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?

> __________________________________________________________________________
>|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |

They are claiming that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an
individual right -- even though there is not a SINGLE court decision
before the 20th century that denies that it protects an individual
right.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Violence on TV? Why can't it be on CSPAN?

aaron greewnood

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 8:31:18 PM2/11/94
to
In article <1994Feb11.1...@gallant.apple.com>,
David Casseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

>>Look at the bright side: by advocating repeal, at LEAST there is an
>>admission if what the second guarantees. This is a LOT better grounds
>>to fight on. Look at how our fourth amendment rights have been stripped
>> by the more circuitious approach that has been taken by the DEA
>>and the courts.

>Before the Bullshit Boulevard is completely flooded with the statement that
>the ACLU advocates repeal of the Second Amendment, thus admitting that it
>guarantees individual gun rights, let me point out that the ACLU *does not*
>advocate repeal. It advocates an interpretation of the Second Amendment that
>some of us disagree with -- specifically, it claims in so many words that the
>Second Amendment doesn't guarantee individual gun rights.

No one said that the ACLU wanted to repeal the Second Ammendment. The
comment was such as to imply that if the ACLU is picking and choosing
those Rights that "THEY" deam resonalble and proper the honest thing
to do would be to seek the repeal of the RKBA. But they didn't.

They choose instead to lie. They choose to distort and rewrite history
to favor THEIR OWN personal politics. The ACLU lies about and denies
what has been written about the meaning of the Second Ammendment by
the Founders of our country and the meaning of the Second Ammendment.

If you read the federalist papers, letters of Jefferson, Adams,
and the other Founders it is clear that the Second Ammendment is
an individual Right just like all the others. The Bill of Rights
protects our Rights FROM the government not the other way around.
They are rights that the government cannot grant or take away.
They can suppress those Rights if they have the power and will to
do so. And we people reserve the right to NOT obey the law.

You call it a difference of interpetation. I call it subversive.
By supporting outright lies and distortions you too could be
guilty of attempting to subvert the Bill Of Rights. By doing
so you open the door for other who don't like this right or
that right to step up to the plate and play. Play fair and
be honest a lot is at stake and those who play games and lie
will find the outcome is not going to be to their liking.

>Just the facts, ma'am.

The facts?

Just the facts? David, you couldn't handle the facts to paraphrase
a movie. Read your history, not the revisionist history you seem to
prefer but the actual paapers written by the Founders. Then tell
me if the Bullshit is the ACLU's or the Founders.

But you hit the nail on the head so they say. That to advocate repeal
would mean that it guarantees individual gun rights and thus admit they
are telling lies and using propaganda for selfish political reasons.
There is no doubt that you recognize the fact they lie by your statements.

But let't at least give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are
not a liar and favor propaganda over truth. Give us a argument as to
why the Second Ammendment is not an individual Right and why it only
as the, ha ha ha, ACLU says only applied to the British. What a
Far-King fable. Quoting leftist law professors is not valid. Stick
with the Founders and see what you can see.

ajg

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 11, 1994, 10:08:30 PM2/11/94
to
k...@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:

>Robert J. Kolker (r...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: k...@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:

>: Hell, if someone were storing nitroglycerine, I think I have the
>: right to know if they are taking the proper precautions against
>: sudden rises in termperature or jiggling.

>Um, I'm not sure you do have that right. I know that no one has ever
>informed me that they had explosives, let alone how they were storing
>or handling them. Maybe they do have the responsibility to tell me,
>but I don't think they are *required* to.

I think you are in error here. There are laws about the storage
of large amounts of explosives. I don't think anyone would raise
a stink about a quarter stick of dynamite, but if you kept a
gross on hand, you would need a permit, which means you would
have to demonstrate you know how to store and handle the stuff.

>: THe generic question
>: is to what extent are we free to impose hazards on our neighbors?

>I think we are free to do as we please until we actually harm someone.
>There are lots of folks out there who impose a hazard on me when they
>drive their cars, but I can't stop them from driving until they actually
>do some harm.

Yes you can. If you can sic the cops on an obviously drunk driver *before*
he does damage, he can be given a field sobriety test and a breathalizer
(I have some reservations about the B.test, but a field sobriety test
is usually acurate). There is a principle in law of clear and present
danger. You do not have to wait for blood to be spilled. If the circumstances
warrant, *preventative* measures can be used.

If you stored hazardous chemicals on your property in a residential
area ( I am talking about stuff like chlorine gas or ethelyne bromide)
I can petition a court to enjoin you to move it to a safer area, away
from people.

>: The excessive hazard (excessive is a matter of discussion and debate)
>: that A inadvertantly imposes on B at some point ceases to be a
>: right and becomes defacto aggression.

>And when it becomes aggression, we can do something about it, but we
>can't stop someone from doing something until they actually violate
>someone else's right. Are you really saying that the gun in my home
>or pocket is an aggression against you?

Not at all.

For the umpty-umpth time I am not arguing about someone having a gun in
his house or his pocket for the purpose of self defense. I am talking
about storing dangerous amounts of energy, where their is no reasonable
purpose. Now if a person is in the roadbuilding business, I have no
argument with his storing explosives in a safe lockup until they are
ready to be used to bust rock. I also assume that said individual has
demonstrated his competance to use explosives.

>: I claim it is *my* right not
>: to be put in danger of life and limb by blantant negligence and
>: incompetence which exists both in the prive sector and government.

>So I should be able to prevent you from driving a car because it's *my*
>right not to be put in danger of life an limb by your car?

If I couldn't show minimal competence to drive, or I was an habitual
reckless driver you would have every right to object to me operating
a vehicle.

That is why you and I take a reasonable exam to show we know how to
drive. That is why we take an eye test to show we are not blind. Would
you let a blind man drive on the grounds he hasn't run over anyone yet?


>: The problem is when government does it we have been betrayed by
>: the latter who are supposed to protect us from the former.

>Sorry. I don't buy into the argument that the government is supposed
>to protect me.

The *only* reason for a government is to provide for the common defense
against crooks, murderers and foreign invaders. Most of us would rather
not speand 95 percent of our time guarding our assess, so we hire
watchmen to do the job for us. Of course we have to watch the watchmen
to make sure that thaey do not betray their trust thru cupidity
or negligence.

One of the blessings of civilization is the division of labor and
specialization of talent. Hiring a minimal government to serve
as a warder, is an efficient use of time, provided the government
is not permitted to become more dangerous than what is is guarding
us against.

If you want to advocate anarchy, which I am somewhat sympathetic
with, I claim you would either hire a watchman or be a watchman.
If you hired one, you would still have to guard against a betrayal
of trust even in the absence of a central government.

In any social order whether anarchic or not, there is a virtual
function of keeping the peace. It can be centralized or distrib-
uted.

Again, for the record, I have no problem with a citizen arming
himself for the purpose of protecting his body or his property.
If you think arming yourself is going to protect you against
government, think again. We live in cities (over 90%), we use
banks and telephones. Once the government controls money and
communication, they don't need guns. Your best protection against
government in a democracy is voting to limit its scope.

If we can't do that, then eventually we have to run for the
hills and join the survivalists, and live the primitive life.
And if you think that will produce liberty, friend, just look
at Bosnia.
>Keith Emmen

T. Mark Gibson

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 1:02:44 AM2/12/94
to
David Casseres <cass...@apple.com> writes:

>As a matter of fact the ACLU has stood up for the rights of a lot of
>individuals and organizations on the Right.

>You should get a clue, Mr. Greewnood: it is possible to support gun rights
>without making a fool of yourself by trying to trash the ACLU, an organization
>that has more integrity than you do.

I like a lot of what the ACLU does. But I will not even consider becoming
an ACLU member until the ACLU starts supporting our right, as individuals,
to keep and bear arms, and stops opposing capital punishment for violent
criminals who truly deserve to be executed.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gibson | Free men keep and bear arms, slaves can't.
gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu | Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!
1:233/16 (Politzania) | Why trust a government that doesn't trust you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don Baldwin

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 2:28:27 AM2/12/94
to
In article <2jdv3p$b...@usenet.rpi.edu> lswi...@remus.ral.rpi.edu
(Lee S Wilfinger) writes:
>True. Still, it remains to be seen how well those with the facts will
>be able to spread their information. If the media doesn't choose to
>sell ad space to pro-gun groups, we're in trouble.

If the media doesn't start playing fair, they'll keeping having their
heads handed to them when the try the "argument by authority" crap on
the Internet.

There _is_ an aclu.org. Draw your own conclusions...

Don

Stilt Man

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 4:21:17 AM2/12/94
to
In article <CL36I...@optilink.com>,

Clayton Cramer <cra...@optilink.dsccc.com> wrote:
>You must have the ACLU copy of the Constitution. The text doesn't
>that at all.

Okay. This time I've got a direct copy of the Constitution on me (I'm posting
this from the modem in my room, rather than verbatim in the library like the
first one was).

This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to being
synonymous with "well regulated militia."

BTW, for those of you who have emailed me one this, I can't keep track of and
battle sixteen different arguments over mail, so I'll take all flak on the
net instead. Any mail I get on this subject from this moment forward will
be cheerfully forwarded to /dev/null.

Of that mail, I saw only one real well-reasoned argument, dealing with a "U.S.
Code" which stated that all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 are
part of a militia. I see two clear problems with this argument:

1) Women and not-so-able-bodied men, as well as anyone over 45, do not qualify.
Therefore, if you are going to use this as an argument, you must also
concede that there is no legal reason why we couldn't disarm anyone
outside the militia group. This, however, would seem to cover all
those who would arguably need weaponry for protection from crime the
most.

2) This U.S. Code is, after all, a law, and Congress has the power to change
this, and thus it is not an obstacle at all. If Congress were to
meddle with the legal definition of "well regulated militia," there
would be no Constitutional basis of stopping them.

Others try to tell me of the words of various people who argue that a well-
armed populace keeps the government from becoming tyrannical. I've heard
that before. My response doesn't change: if today's federal government were
to get tyrannical, I have dim hopes that the weaponry available to the people
today would avail them aught but to get them reduced to their component atoms.
I don't think too many people would argue we should allow the common people
to have jet fighters, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weaponry, to even the
score with the government.

__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |

|__________________________________________________________________________|
To fib is archaic, to flip, devious.
--basic motto for George Bush

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 7:27:52 AM2/12/94
to
fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) writes:

.......snip.....

>Others try to tell me of the words of various people who argue that a well-
>armed populace keeps the government from becoming tyrannical. I've heard
>that before. My response doesn't change: if today's federal government were
>to get tyrannical, I have dim hopes that the weaponry available to the people
>today would avail them aught but to get them reduced to their component atoms.
>I don't think too many people would argue we should allow the common people
>to have jet fighters, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weaponry, to even the
>score with the government.

Let me augment you valid point. The government excercise tyranny
over the people, not by taking them down to Gestapo HQ to have
their nails pulled out, but by regulating (nay over-regulating)
commerce, by excessive taxation, and by redistribution of incomes.

The U.S. has become a de-facto fascist state, and our freedom of
speech has remained substantially intact during the period in
which this transformation occurred, since the end of the American
Civil War (or War for Southron Independence) until the present.

The Day of Doom of course, was the day Congress pried open our
wallets and passed the 16-th ammendment. This crowbar in the
hands of the politicians, has made all the subsequent do-good
redistributions and subsidies possible.

If every man, woman and child had an Uzi and unlimited ammo, it
would avail us not, till we get our lives de regulated.

Now can an armed rebellion happen? Yes. What will it likely bring
us? Our version of Bosnia. Unless the people of the nation get
back their lives from the burocrats and regulators by peaceful and
consentual means, we are in for a world of pain

e...@netcom.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 10:09:35 AM2/12/94
to
In article <2jgvr9$q...@news.aero.org> jor...@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
>How does one communicate the import of what's happen w.r.t. 2nd amendment
>to a population that's in 'condition white' as far as their freedom is
>concerned and not be branded an 'alarmist'?

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to nuclear weapons. That seems
alarming to me. Or am I just an alarmist?

No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
persuade the government to allow you to stay alive. Don't do anything
to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.

The world is different from the days of Thomas Paine. Back then,
people could defend themselves from all invaders with muskets and
bayonets. Thomas Jefferson, for all his genius, probably never dreamed
of anything like nuclear weapons or cruise missles being possible, and
maybe not even scuds. Guns are the great equalizer, but more modern
weapons ruin the equality.

Back then, we were considered an invincible military power because
"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in
such a country as that which we posses, are invincible by any force
which our enemy can bring against us." That is no longer true. In the
modern world, we have to rely on the advanced technology of the
Pentagon.

The words of the constitution are used as an excuse against gun
control. But it's just the words, not the spirit. Guns don't arm a
well regulated militia anymore, not to the point where they can resist
invaders armed with modern weapons.

The real reason we need guns is to defend ourselves against criminals.
That is the only real reason. Government tyranny has nothing to do
with it. Until the gun advocates understand that point, they will
continue to waste their time with arguments that don't convince any
reasonable person of anything other than that they seem to be nuts.

William December Starr

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 10:22:13 AM2/12/94
to

In article <2ji72d...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,
fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) said:

> This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.
>
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed."
>
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to
> being synonymous with "well regulated militia."

Um, no, it isn't. What's clearly stated is that the right of the people


to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If the gentlemen who drafted the Second Amendment, and the people who
voted to ratify it, had wanted to say "The right of the people, when
acting as a well regulated militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed," they could have. They didn't.

-- William December Starr <wds...@world.std.com>

William December Starr

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 10:49:57 AM2/12/94
to

[Note that I've added alt.society.civil-liberty to this thread and
dropped misc.legal from the "Followup-To" line.]

In article <2jc74i$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) said:

> Could it be that todays members no longer love the US or our history
> or culture? Who are these people in todays ACLU and are they members
> of special interest groups that we should be aware of? Who is the
> ACLU, who the Far-King A are they? I think they are becomming the
> enemy of freedom and liberty.

Despite your tone, you ask good questions. The ACLU today doesn't seem
(to me) to be the sum of its members but rather its national ruling
body, and I quite frankly _don't_ know who those people are or what they
believe in. And I sure can't tell from the literature that they used to
send me and the "please renew your membership" mail that I get today.

Which is one of the reasons I'm currently an ex-member.

Andrew Rogers

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 11:12:11 AM2/12/94
to
In article <VEAL.544...@gateway.ce.utk.edu> VE...@gateway.ce.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
>
> *Cough*. Organizing and training as an armed body tends to
>be rather ... illegal ... in most places.

And has been since long before there was an ACLU.

Andrew

Andrew Rogers

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 11:28:30 AM2/12/94
to
In article <2jjb8n$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu> star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (aaron greewnood) writes:
>I tell you David if the ACLU contributes to the subversion of the Second
>Ammendment and we lose the protection of our Rights the the Bill Of
>Rights gives us you may be very sorry in the future.

1) You'd have more credibility if you learned to spell "amendment" correctly;

2) In all your ranting and raving, you have yet to explain exactly what the
ACLU is doing to "contribute to the subversion of" the Second Amendment.

Can you cite a single case where the ACLU has testified for the prosecution
in a criminal case invoving violation of a gun-related law? If so, please
post the court and docket number. If not, then explain exactly what
"subversion" you have in mind.

Andrew

Frank Crary

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 1:29:13 PM2/12/94
to
In article <2jdtto...@flop.engr.orst.edu>,
Stilt Man <fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>How come the ACLU is willing to go against the Second Ammendment?
>>Why does the ACLU lie.

>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>Let me check . . .

>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing armies.

>What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?

Well, obviously, the people can't gather into an armed militia if they
don't own any guns. For a militia to form, it's members must have
free access to arms. Otherwise you create a catch-22 where militias
have no realistic way of forming. That's why _both_ clauses of the
Second Amendment are important: Militias are necessary to the
security of a free state, and to assure the existence, effectiveness
and potential of these militias, the individual members ("all
citizens capable of bearing arms" in the words of the Supreme
Court) have a protected right to own weapons. The Southern California
Civil Liberties Union (not the national ACLU) is pushing the
disarmament of militia members.

Frank Crary
CU Boulder

Wayne J. Warf

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 2:12:43 PM2/12/94
to
In article <ercCL4...@netcom.com> e...@netcom.com writes:
>In article <2jgvr9$q...@news.aero.org> jor...@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
>>How does one communicate the import of what's happen w.r.t. 2nd amendment
>>to a population that's in 'condition white' as far as their freedom is
>>concerned and not be branded an 'alarmist'?
>
>The 2nd amendment gives you the right to nuclear weapons. That seems
>alarming to me. Or am I just an alarmist?
>
>No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
>from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
>against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
>persuade the government to allow you to stay alive. Don't do anything
>to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
>government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
>if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
>and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.

How would they nuke "us" without nuking themselves? That's the problem
with an insurgency, the enemy is all around you.

>The world is different from the days of Thomas Paine. Back then,
>people could defend themselves from all invaders with muskets and
>bayonets. Thomas Jefferson, for all his genius, probably never dreamed
>of anything like nuclear weapons or cruise missles being possible, and
>maybe not even scuds. Guns are the great equalizer, but more modern
>weapons ruin the equality.
>

Pray tell, how? Where do they use them? How do they separate enemy
from friendly areas? How do they destroy a section of the country without
driving the whole population to join the insurgents.

>Back then, we were considered an invincible military power because
>"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in
>such a country as that which we posses, are invincible by any force
>which our enemy can bring against us." That is no longer true. In the
>modern world, we have to rely on the advanced technology of the
>Pentagon.

It's just scrap metal if they can't use it.

>The words of the constitution are used as an excuse against gun
>control. But it's just the words, not the spirit. Guns don't arm a
>well regulated militia anymore, not to the point where they can resist
>invaders armed with modern weapons.

Modern history contradicts. Even the Soviets restrained themselves from
using nuclear weapons in someone else's country, Afghanistan.

>The real reason we need guns is to defend ourselves against criminals.
>That is the only real reason. Government tyranny has nothing to do
>with it. Until the gun advocates understand that point, they will
>continue to waste their time with arguments that don't convince any
>reasonable person of anything other than that they seem to be nuts.

What if the criminals are wearing government uniforms?

--
Wayne J. Warf -- WW...@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only, not IU
*<send request to receive or stop Indiana gun news mail to above address>*
Executive Committee member-Sycamore Valley Gun Club-10th and Range Rd
Bloomington, Indiana-Call for Range and Club Info: (812) 855-2701

aaron greewnood

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 2:39:03 PM2/12/94
to
In article <1994Feb11.2...@gallant.apple.com>,

David Casseres <cass...@apple.com> wrote:
>In article <2jgir7$e...@galaxy.ucr.edu> aaron greewnood,
>star...@galaxy.ucr.edu writes:
>>If the ACLU was honest and upright they would admit they don't
>>believe in the Bill Of Rights except when it fits their leftist
>>politics. If they were really honest they would promote the
>>repeal of the Second Ammendment instead of being liars and dishonest
>>people. But they know repeal would not happen. They don't give
>>a shit about the Bill Of Rights when their actions show that
>>they hold it in contempt. Just educated scum.
>
>As a matter of fact the ACLU has stood up for the rights of a lot of
>individuals and organizations on the Right.

So what, it does not excuse their taking a political position against
the Second Ammendment based on lies and propaganda motivated by the
politics of their leftist membership. So David I asked you to defend
the position and I see you choose not to. I can only assume your position
is not based on fact and that you indeed support lies and propaganda to
achieve you political goals. Prove me wrong and give an Argument in
support of the ACLU position. Read Jefferson and the other founders
and tell me if it is the ACLU or Thomas Jefferson who is full of Bullshit.


>
>You should get a clue, Mr. Greewnood: it is possible to support gun rights
>without making a fool of yourself by trying to trash the ACLU, an organization
>that has more integrity than you do.

>David Casseres

I feel that it is people like you and the members of the ACLU that
have no integrity for supporting propaganda and lies. Your relpy seems to
indicate you cannot answer the question I asked you. That question is
how can the ACLU make the claims they do when the historical facts say
otherwise. I offered in the original post the written words of our
Founders on the Second Ammendment. The Founders created the Constitution
and Bill Of Rights making it clear the RKBA is an individual right to
provide the citizens with a means of protecting themselves from tyranny.
This is a Right and not something the government can grant or take away.

I don't care how good a man has been in life if he commits rape just one
time. I don't care how good the ACLU has been when they RAPE the Bill
Of Rights. In the past the ACLU may have done good but today the is
infested with educated scum. Scum that has no regard for the Constitution.
Some feminists in the ACLU don't want them to take cases of Sexual
Harressment, Politics baby not a love of the Bill Of Rights. The ACLU
of today needs to be trashed. There is no partial credit in life. If
the ACLU chooses to subvert the Bill Of Rights and not to the honest thing
which is to admit they don't feel the Second Ammendment is a Right then
they should be trashed. They should have their public meetings protested.

I tell you David if the ACLU contributes to the subversion of the Second
Ammendment and we lose the protection of our Rights the the Bill Of

Rights gives us you may be very sorry in the future. There are enemies
of other Ammendments and they may take you lead execpt that they will
be after the Rights you love. It is not honest to play games and that
is what the ACLU is doing.

ajg

Larry DeSoto

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 3:15:25 PM2/12/94
to
e...@netcom.com writes:


>No amount of handguns and rifles, etc. is going to protect your freedom
>from the Pentagon. If you don't have the power to defend yourself
>against nuclear weapons, your best bet is to learn to suck up and
>persuade the government to allow you to stay alive. Don't do anything
>to offend the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, or any other arm of the
>government, and you have a reasonable chance of living in peace. But
>if you insist on defending yourself from them with your right to keep
>and bear arms, they will stomp on you like a spider.

I think I'm gonna puke..

--
Larry
lar...@neuron.pathology.washington.edu | finger for PGP Public Key

and not a mere Device

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 4:04:41 PM2/12/94
to
William December Starr (wds...@world.std.com) wrote:
: In article <2ji72d...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,

True, but neither did they say "The right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed." Instead, they added that pesky little
clause at the beginning: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State,..." On the basis of that clase, thousands of
Usenet articles have been traded back and forth. Presumably, if they
had wanted to say it flat out, they could have. They didn't. The
significance of the clause -- explanatory, purposive, irrelevant -- is
what makes the RKBA debate so exciting, wouldn't you say?

On a related note, it is unfortunately impossible to determine the
significance of the 2nd Amendments paired clauses on the basis of comma
usage. In modern usage, we wouldn't put a comma between "Arms" and "shall,"
so the presence of other commas is unhelpful in interpretation.

So, Mr. Starr, what is the significance of the first clause of the Second
Amendment?

: -- William December Starr <wds...@world.std.com>

D.J.Schaeffer | The Todal looks like a blob of glup. It makes
go...@world.std.com | a sound like rabbits screaming and smells
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ of old, unopened rooms.
James Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_

David Veal

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 4:47:45 PM2/12/94
to

>In article <2jenje$j...@transfer.stratus.com>,


>C. D. Tavares <c...@sw.stratus.com> wrote:
>>> What, pray tell, is the ACLU doing that's so contra to this?
>>

>>Apparently, not supporting public funding of reading comprehension programs.

>Well, let's see here . . .

>"A free and well-regulated militia, being necessary to the freedom of the
>states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>infringed."

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not
be infringed."

The word "state" is not used in the plural as it is elsewhere
when referring to "the several states." Which leads me at least to
believe they were speaking of "state" in terms of the generic political
entity rather than specifically of the States.

[...]

>You will notice that the main point at the beginning of the Amendment is
>"well-regulated militia." The NRA makes the pretense that this Amendment
>is only about people keeping weaponry, with no qualifications on it. That
>is very simply not the case. The Amendment clearly qualifies that right
>as stating that the people have the right to gather together in a well-
>regulated, armed and free militia.

But it doesn't. The amendment says absolutely nothing about the
right to gather as a militia. The only right mentioned is the right
to keep and bear arms. I'm not aware of many people at all, least of
all lawmakers and judges, who would take seriously a right to gather
as an armed force.

What the amendment says is that a well regulated militia is necessary
to the security of a free state, not the right to keep and bear arms. It
is a reason to protect the RKBA, not a requirement to be met. The whole
point was to protect arms ownership to prevent the militia from being
disbanded effectively by being neglected. (That is, requiring the militia
to be provided for by the government and then never providing for them).

If the militia is a gathering of armed citizens, and you must
be a member of the militia to be armed... exactly how do you join the
militia? It becomes a catch-22.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal University of Tennessee, Division of Continuing Education
E-Mail: ve...@gateway.ce.utk.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Veal

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 4:53:55 PM2/12/94
to
In article <2jepof...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) writes:

>In article <VEAL.544...@gateway.ce.utk.edu>,
>David Veal <VE...@gateway.ce.utk.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2jdtto...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt


>Man) writes:
>>>Well, lessee, Second Amendment, Second Amendment . . . which one is that.
>>>Let me check . . .
>>
>>>Ah yes, the one that says the people will have the right to gather as
>>>an armed militia, and thus be able to protect themselves from standing
>armies.
>>

>> *Cough*. Organizing and training as an armed body tends to
>>be rather ... illegal ... in most places.

>The exact wording of the Second Amendment on this subject is "well-regulated
>militia."

Actually, it's "well regulated."

>The national guards qualify as such, and are indeed militias in
>the old sense of the word.

The National Guards are also members of the United States army.
That is, in their case the Second Amendment would prohibit the Federal
Government from disarming ... the Federal Government.

Somehow I don't think they'd have written such a patently ludicrous
law. There was much concern of government abuse. I rather doubt anybody
even considered the possibility the government might try to ... horrors ...
disarm itself.

>Street gangs and lynch mobs, on the other hand,
>are not.

I suppose at this point I should be properly offended.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

>The NRA could theoretically declare itself to be a militia, but
>aside from that, there is no premise behind most of their arguments with
>respect to the Second Amendment.

NRA? Who said anything about the NRA?

David Veal

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 5:11:30 PM2/12/94
to
In article <CL4qJ...@world.std.com> go...@world.std.com (and not a mere Device) writes:

>William December Starr (wds...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: In article <2ji72d...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,
>: fol...@storm.cs.orst.edu (Stilt Man) said:
>: > This time, I'm quoting from a text, rather than from memory.
>: > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>: > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>: > infringed."
>: > The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated to
>: > being synonymous with "well regulated militia."
>: Um, no, it isn't. What's clearly stated is that the right of the people
>: to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>: If the gentlemen who drafted the Second Amendment, and the people who
>: voted to ratify it, had wanted to say "The right of the people, when
>: acting as a well regulated militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>: infringed," they could have. They didn't.

>True, but neither did they say "The right of the people to keep and bear
>Arms, shall not be infringed." Instead, they added that pesky little
>clause at the beginning: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
>the security of a free State,..." On the basis of that clase, thousands of
>Usenet articles have been traded back and forth. Presumably, if they
>had wanted to say it flat out, they could have. They didn't. The
>significance of the clause -- explanatory, purposive, irrelevant -- is
>what makes the RKBA debate so exciting, wouldn't you say?

One thing about the Framers was they were just a tad too literary.
In a number of places (most importantly the Bill of Rights) they didn't
set things down as simply as they could, and tend to vary wording for the
simple point of not being repititious. (Additionally, there's another
interesting clause in Article I, Section 8 regarding Congress' power to
issue patents and copyrights. It says specifically that the purpose is
the promote "science and the useful arts." Yet I really don't think the
inclusion of a reasoning means they can't issue patents to fundamentally
useful concepts.)

Tim Smith

unread,
Feb 12, 1994, 6:19:19 PM2/12/94