XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: Nope@noway.net   
      
   The Lone Weasel wrote:   
   > Magus  said:   
   >   
   >> Natman wrote:   
   >>> 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."   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)