XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: Nope@noway.net   
      
   Scout wrote:   
   > "Magus"  wrote in message   
   > news:POlHi.51733$Y7.35397@bignews3.bellsouth.net...   
   >> 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."   
   >>>   
   >>> When you say that it is important to take the Second Amendment "in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)