XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: x@y.com   
      
   >Trump says that all Americans who protest while armed are threats to law   
   >enforcement and deserve to be shot.   Kash Patel said today that only   
   >criminals carry guns in public so anyone exercising their Constitutional   
   >right deserves to be killed by Government agents.   
      
   The Donald and his entourage of "yes"-men lack credibility.   
      
   I remain unconvinced that gun-carry is a constitutionally protected   
   act.  There is a very good argument that the framers' intention when   
   drafting the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States   
   was to arrive at a compromise on the question of slavery (without   
   mentioning the practice explicitly) that would allow Virginia (and,   
   correlatively, the southern states) to ratify the proposed   
   constitution written in 1787.   
      
   This interpretation derives support from a careful reading of the   
   Proceedings of the 1789 Richmond Ratification Debates.  The over   
   riding theme permeating all of the speeches was slavery... period!   
   There were *very* few references to "armed citizens" overthrowing a   
   despotic government (I am only aware of one) made prior to the   
   adoption of the 1787 constitution.  The question of slavery absolutely   
   *dominated* the political discourse of the time.  The bit about   
   overthrowing the government came later.   
      
   The syntax of the second amendment is so highly convoluted as to   
   obscure its semantic.  For an example of clarity, compare 2A with the   
   first amendment: "Congress shall make no law ..." leaves very little   
   room for creative interpretation.  Contrary to what many believe   
   (Antonin Scalia, for example), 2A contains a single clause (we may   
   discuss that, but I won't go into it here.)  My point being that it   
   was deliberately written so as to be unclear.. this because it was a   
   compromise.   
      
   WRT the original statement in the posting: I might accept that a   
   person or persons who comes to an assembly armed is not assembling   
   peacefully.  I would not suggest opening fire; however, guns should be   
   restricted at protests in the same way they are in hospitals... where   
   people are also under great stress.   
      
   But this line of reasoning brings me full circle to the fact that we   
   are now confronted by gangs of armed thugs (ICE agents), and, sooner   
   or later, we will have to pick up guns and fight them.   
      
   Try fitting that onto a bumper sticker.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)