From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Personal Freedoms and the Second Amendment.
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:04:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.192145.16282@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

>In article <veal.138@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>>The founders, with an understanable fear of government oppression, 
>>considering the circumstances, wanted to make sure that, in the event
>>the need again arose for the people to overthrow their government, the
>>first last line of defense, the armed populace (or the militia) could not
>>legally be disarmed.

>Not exactly.  The founders thought the ideals expressed in the first 10
>amendments were already contained in the original draft of the
>constitution.  It was at the insistence of the states that the amendments
>be added.

Wisely, apparently, given the propensity for ignoring the Consitution in 
certain quarters.  (Like those tax-fattened hyeanas on the Hill.)

>>The militia does not today, nor has it ever, refered solely, or even 
>>primarily, to professional soldiers.

>The militia that is referred to in the 2nd amendment now takes the form of
>the national guard, which get paid for their work.  

No, it does not.  The National Guard is NOT a militia, it is a federally 
controlled military force.  IT is not self supplied or self-trained.

>>     Ok, class, let's all open our Constitution.  Let's all look at 
>>AMENDMENT 14, which specifically defines citizenship and who qualifies.
>>Since RKBA is a *right*, and women are *citizens*, they therefore have *all 
>>the rights* listed in the Constitution.

>And amendment 14 came *after* the second amendment which came *before*
>your the definition you supplied for militia.  You have still to prove your
>case that militia as expressed in the 2nd amendment means all citizens.

No, he doesn't. THAT is self-evident from the text.

>>     The unorganized militia is still defined, by the government, as males 
>>between the ages of 17 and 45, but that does not restrict a right, which
>>is guaranteed to the *people*, not the militia, from women.

>RKBA is *not* guaranteed to the people by virtue of the second
>amendment.  

Yes, it is.

>Nowhere is it stated that "the right of the People to keep
>and bear arms shall be infringed".  

SUre it is.  In the Second Amendment.

>The key phrase here is "the
>People".  The second amendment was added only to prevent the new
>federal government from disarming the state militias and thereby
>threatening their sovereignty.  

No, it was not.  It was created to prevent the new federal governemnt from 
disarming private citizens, in an efffort to maintain an armed citizenry as 
a check on tyranny.

>>     The Founders were big on explaining their intentions.  Meaning still
>>does not imply restriction.

>Using the intentions of the Founders to supportthe right of the
>people to keep and bear arms is contradictory.

How?


>>     The view that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is
>>a fairly new one, originating primarily in the twentieth century.

>You've got it backwards.  The view that the Second Amendment does apply to
>individuals is a fairly new one, originating primarily in the twentieth
>century.  

No, it is not.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc