XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Natman"  wrote in message   
   news:v1kre3t79l5fj9vb2c2pkpk0tbm2qpllra@4ax.com...   
   > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:56:13 -0500, The Lone Weasel   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>Natman  said:   
   >>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:44:18 -0500, The Lone Weasel   
   >   
   >>   
   >>To claim that the   
   >>> phrase "right of the people" means one thing in the Second   
   >>> Amendment, then claim in means exactly the opposite in   
   >>> another amendment in the *same* document is pretty brazen.   
   >>   
   >>Context.  You have to know something about history and law to   
   >>know the context of words used in the Constitution.   
   >>   
   >>For example, do you think the word "defence" means the same   
   >>thing every place it appears in the Constitution?  Don't you   
   >>think it's odd that we find the term "common defence" twice, and   
   >>you somehow misconstrue "the right of the people" as an   
   >>individual right?  You also find "defence" used in the Sixth   
   >>Amendment where in criminal prosecutions the accused has the   
   >>right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".   
   >>   
   >>Do you say the term "defence" is used in exactly the same   
   >>context everywhere in the Constitution, Gnatman?  Do you say   
   >>"the common defence" refers to the accused at trial?  Do you say   
   >>"the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" means military   
   >>troops are used to defend communities, states, the nation?   
   >>   
   > I don't think every word means exactly the same thing every time it is   
   > used. Let's talk about context. The Second Amendment has a lot of   
   > contexts.   
   >   
   > There's the historical context:   
   >   
   > Here are a few quotes (thanks Topp):   
   >   
   >> "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.  They are left in   
   >> full possession of them."   
   >> -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646   
   >>   
   >> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."   
   >> -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson   
   >> Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)   
   >>   
   >> "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be   
   >> infringed.  A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained   
   >> to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."   
   >> -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)   
   >>   
   >> "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to   
   >> prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,   
   >> from keeping their own arms."   
   >> -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the   
   >>  Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87   
   >   
   > There are lots more. Leif dismisses these without discussion as "Guns   
   > Unlimited" quotes.  but "Guns Unlimited", whoever that is, didn't SAY   
   > them, the Founding Fathers did.  And why do people who support gun   
   > freedom use these quotes? BECAUSE THE QUOTES SUPPORT THEIR CASE.   
   >   
   > Now if you can provide some authenticated quotes by the people who   
   > wrote the Bill of Rights that support YOUR case that no one outside   
   > the National Guard should have guns, I'd be happy to hear them.   
   >   
   > If there is any doubt that the Founding Fathers intended that guns   
   > should be owned by individuals as a check against oppressive   
   > governments, I ask you:  WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THEY WERE DOING IN   
   > 1776?   
   >   
   > The concept that they intended that arms should only be allowed under   
   > the control of a government entity (the state militias) is completely   
   > out of historical context.   
   >   
   > The context of the Bill of Rights:   
   >   
   > The Bill of Rights is a list of the people's rights as individuals.   
   > From another perspective it is a list of restrictions ON THE   
   > GOVERNMENT.   
   >   
   > Words may have different meanings, but the phrase, let me repeat,   
   > PHRASE, "the right of the people" is very specific and is used   
   > consistently to mean the right of the people AS INDIVIDUALS. It is   
   > completely inconsistent with the context of the Bill of Rights to   
   > suppose that the Second Amendment grants a privilege (keeping arms)   
   > solely for members of a government body (a state militia). If that   
   > were their intent it wouldn't have been in the Bill of Rights.   
   >   
   > Finally there is the context of the Second Amendment itself.   
   >   
   > "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."   
   >   
   > There are two verbs in the sentence (Being [necessary] and Shall Not   
   > Be [infringed]). There are two clauses. The first preferatory clause   
   > says that a Militia is necessary. The second operative clause says   
   > that the right of the people shall not be infringed.   
   >   
   > There is NOTHING about the right only extending to militia members,   
   > that the militia only consists of militias that are part of state   
   > governments or any of the other nonsense you guys have tried to pile   
   > on. There is NOTHING that justifies turning the phrase "the right of   
   > the people" to mean anything other than what it means in every   
   > amendment; the right of the people AS INDIVIDUALS to whatever the   
   > amendment recognizes.   
   >   
   > If I may paraphrase Lief, if the founders had wanted the amendment to   
   > apply only to State Militia members, they certainly could have said   
   > so.   
   >   
   > To quote the decision reversing the DC handgun ban:   
   >   
   > "Page 36   
   > The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a well regulated   
   > Militia even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia   
   > is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear   
   > arms. The Amendment does not protect "the right of militiamen to keep   
   > and bear arms," but rather "the right of the people." The operative   
   > clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry   
   > beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out   
   > that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the   
   > right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to   
   > imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We   
   > therefore take it as an expression of the drafters' view that the   
   > people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that   
   > the preservation of the militia was the right's most salient   
   > political benefit and thus the most appropriate to express in a   
   > political document."   
   >   
   > When you say that it is important to take the Second Amendment "in   
   > context", you mean you want license to take it OUT OF CONTEXT, to spin   
   > whatever meaning you want on top of it. The favorite is to take the   
   > word "militia" out of ALL THREE contexts and spin endless fantasies   
   > from it.   
   >   
   > ***Just because the word militia appears in the amendment does NOT   
   > provide a "military context" that justifies changing its meaning. ***   
   >   
   > ***************   
   >   
   > If it suited your purposes, you guys could look at the moon and swear   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)