From: kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki)
Subject: Re: Rights and Legal Manuevering (Was Re: democratic platform)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:21:45 GMT

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.

>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.  By definition, they
are professional soldiers.

>     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.

>     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.  Nowhere is it stated that "the right of the People to keep
and bear arms shall be infringed".  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.  It has only been through Constitutional
interpretation that the second amendment has been applied to the people
*and* at the state level and that interpretation would not have been
possible were it not for the 14th amendment.

>     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.


>     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.  It's also a very contemporary idea that the Bill of Rights
applies at the state (non-federal) level.

Cheers,
    -Ken K
-- 
Ken Konecki
e-mail:kenk@sdc.com    -or-    ...!uunet!tellab5!sdc!kenk
"I just found out that the brain is like a computer.  If that's true,
then there really aren't any stupid people.  Just people running DOS."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1068 talk.politics.guns:18306