From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:36:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.004127.17208@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>What you fail to understand is that according to established fact,
>>the Oxford English Dictionary (1989 Ed.), "well regulated" in the mid 1700's
>>meant "well-disciplined/competent/able" when said of troops.  
>                                                      ^^^^^^

>Note key word there. This definition refers to "troops", does it not? Now
>look up "troops" in your 1989 version. My 1991 version reads:
>	troop. 1. a. A body of soldiers.

>[...]

>See above. The very definition you cite is limited in scope to "soldiers",
>which does, I'm afraid, imply "government control and organization".

My dictionary defines "soldier" as "one who engages in a combat or
struggle." Certainly people fighting in armed revolt against a
government are properly called "soldiers" and they are clearly
neither organized nor controled by their government. (Don't bring
up revolutionarly governments. Plently of revolts didn't form a
government until they won the war, but they were still soldiers.)

>>Indeed, how can a militia (defined by federal law
>>as all free males between the ages of 17 and 45) 

>(Federal law passed by Congress does not supercede the Constitution unless
>it goes through the proper Amendment Ratification process, I'll note).

No, but since "militia" has been so defined since the Constitution was
written, this gives an extremely clear idea of the intended meaning
of "militia" as used in the Second Amendment.

>>...fight the government if it's controlled by the government?  

>The explicit purpose of the "well-regulated militia" referred to in the 2nd 
>Amendment is to promote/enhance/protect the security of a free state. There's
>nothing in there about "fighting the government".

Please note the word "free": The militia was to preserve or restore a
_free_ state. The framers considered this to include fighting or
overthrowing repressive governments (i.e. governments that were no
longer "free")

(See, for example, Federalist Number 29, or the anti-federalist
essays by "Brutus" or the "Letters from the federal farmer to the
republican.")

>[About the Dread Scott ruling]
>I have not seen specific quotations to that effect. I've seen references
>to "We can't imagine blacks having an RKBA" and references to "We can't
>imagine blacks being full citizens", but I don't recall ever seeing them
>put both statements together in an implicatory framework.

The Court listed cetrain right that it considered inseperable from
citizenship: If freed slaves were citiznes, then they must have these
rights. The list read:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens
in one state of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever
they pleased, singly or in companies...; and it would give them the
full liberty of speach...; and to keep and bear arms wherever they went."

The Chief Justice Taney went on to argue that freed slaves with such
rights was unimmaginable, and therefore freed slaves could not possibly
be citizens.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder