From: asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: mikea@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Chaos
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:27:50 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

<Snip>

>Thanks for doing my work for me. The majority of the people for whom this
>vaunted universal RKBA is being cited are not "troops", in any common-sense
>meaning of the term.

>Q.E.D.

<Snip>

>>Furthermore, the
>>first clause of the Second Amendment is *not* a restrictive clause,
>>it merely states the reason for the second clause--which acknowledges
>>an unlimited right to keep and bear arms.

>It is a long-standing rule of statutory construction that the meaning chosen
>for a given law should acknowledge that every phrase therein has SOME sort of 
>contributory meaning to the whole. In this instance, one cannot read the first
>clause of the 2nd as being non-restrictive UNLESS one is prepared to interpret
>it as redundant idle chit-chat, and therefore to break the established rule. 
>This rule is usually waived in the case of mere preambles or "mission 
>statements", of course, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't qualify as either of 
>those. I therefore see no reason to refrain from applying the rule in this 
>case.

Goddam, I am actually agreeing with Termie on something.

Kevin, you seem like a reasonable fellow, so see if this grabs you:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.
Well, we've already seen in this thread that well regulated means well
armed and trained.  But this amendment does not actually call for anything
until after this 'preamble' or 'mission' statement: "...the right of the
People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

>Like I said, I'd be fairly sympathetic to a universal RKBA, but I just don't
>think the 2nd is up to the task as written. Please propose another Amendment, 
>instead of trying to twist the 2nd to your political agenda. Constitutional
>revisionist tinkering tends to make me uneasy...

I am hardly a revisionist (although I speak only for myself).  I can tell
you this:  nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress or the Executive
empowered to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.  And as we all know,
the Gov't must be specifically empowered to do something, in order to do
it.  

I'm not saying this well, but a strict constructionist point of view (as
in: non-Revisionist) holds that the people are allowed to do anything that
the Government is not specifically empowered to prevent.

This is pretty thoroughly shown in the Federalist Papers, and of course in
the tenth (?) amendment.

IMNSHO, no government in the US, Federal, State or local, is empowered to
restrict RKBA.  All waiting periods on and bans of small arms (Pistols,
rifles, and shotguns) are unConstitutional.

-- 
Michael A. Atkinson       | "Just stop whining." - Rebecca 
asbestos@nwu.edu          |

            A Libertarian and an NRA member.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:260 alt.politics.elections:8870