From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:34:15 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <1992Sep8.001404.16988@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[Note the brutal slaying of talk.abortion in the newsgroups line.]

>In article <BtI5Lz.5I9@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)writes:
>>[Note followup.]
>>
>>In <1992Aug24.054700.8995@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) write:
>>>>If memory serves, "Fletcher's Political Works", pub'd in 1749,
>>>>defines a "well-regulated militia" as a body of armed citizens
>>>>not under control of an executive (when under control of an
>>>>executive, presumably they are an army).
>>>Bully for Fletcher. Unfortunately for the NRA, the 2nd doesn't read
>>>"A well-regulated militia (as defined by Fletcher) being necessary..."
>>
>>Unfortunately for you, you don't understand that what Fletcher did was
>>to set down how terms were understood in the period (much closer to the
>>writing of the Constitution than we are today).
>
>Why should I accept Fletcher as an authority on the meaning of the words,
>Russ, any more than any other scholar? What's so special about him?

     There's no particular reason you should.  However, some scholars
*are* better than others, and their works generally reflect this.  Check
other sources from the time-period.

>
>In fact, why should I even CONSULT Fletcher's works, when the meaning of
>the Amendment is crystal clear (to me, at least), and doesn't require any
>necrotelepathy at all to "disambiguate" it?

     You consult Fletcher's works because we are discussing an important
issue and somebody indicates there is evidence for his argument in those
works.
     The impression is, though, that you *have* made up your mind and
don't want to be bothered by conflicting evidence.

>>Now, we can argue as to why they wanted this, but the intent is clear,
>>and until revoked, it *is* the law of the land.
>
>Yes, it is the law of the land. Both clauses. Until the first clause is
>specifically repealed, it HAS to have meaning. The NRA interpretation
>would rob it all useful meaning, and is therefore an implicit repeal.
>Since when is the NRA empowered to repeal parts of Constitutional
>Amendments? Why didn't I get a memo on this? :-)

     Bizarre logic.

     I see no reason to believe that the first clause of the second amendment
restricts the second clause solely by the weight of its existance.  In order
for it to restrict a right of the people in the second clause, it must modify
the word "people."  The grammar and sentence structure don't.

>>>>My understanding of the use of the phrase "well-regulated" is
>>>>that we would call it "well-trained" or "smoothly functioning"
>>>>today.
>>>Which implies some sort of organizational body training and maintaining
>>>them, IMO. Not just any old yahoo who can pull a trigger.
>>
>>As a matter of fact, elsewhere in the Constitution, Congress is
>>given the power of arming and disciplining (training) the militia.
>
>Good point, although if you're referring to Article I, Section 8, Paragraph
>16, that reads as giving the Congress the power to _prescribe_ training
>methods, but leaves the States the actual authority to _administer_ the
>training. Slight distinction there.
>
>The Article I stuff is rather moot anyway, since the 2nd Amendment can
>override its provisions, if that is the only reasonable interpretation
>possible.

     The first amendments, when adopted, were not considered to modify
the original Constitution in any way, only saying explicitly what was
already implicitly in the document.

>Personally, I read the 2nd as permitting "citizen militias" not
>under the direct control of any governmental subdivision. However, I still
>see two irreducible requirements:

     Isn't it a little amazing to take an amendment with the words
"right" and "shall not be infringed" and come up with "permitting?"
     The Bill of Rights were specifically to protect rights.
>
>	A) That the militia be "well-regulated"
>
>	B) That it be necessary for the security of a free state
>
     The existance of the militia itself was intended to safeguard the
free state, not be a requirement of its existance.  If a phrase which
excused conscientous objectors was rejected on the grounds the government
might arbitrarily decide whose religious beliefs prevented them from
serving, isn't it a little absurd to suggest they would allow such a
qualification as the militia must be "necessary for the security of a
free state" to simply exist, and allow the government to determine it?

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================