XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Magus"  wrote in message   
   news:dwFHi.62793$t9.14899@bignews7.bellsouth.net...   
   > Scout wrote:   
   >> "Magus"  wrote in message   
   >> news:POlHi.51733$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)