From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Docs versus riflemen
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:58:23 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Jul21.051052.18543@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:

>In article <1992Jul17.105241.9490@ucc.su.OZ.AU> bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul13.032532.6409@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>>> .... Having an armed population does not guarantee
>>> the ability to overthrow a government, but it does guarantee violence.
>>
>>I'm sure that the Swiss people thoroughly agree with you.  There is nothing
>>wrong with violence per se, but it should be justifyable. They would be
>>prepared to use violence to repel invaders to their country, and there are
>>plenty of weapons (even ones you would probably call evil assault weapons)
>>available to the population.  Yes, they are an armed population.  Yes they
>>would be prepared to use violence.  Do you still think this is such a bad
>>thing?  Would you feel safe in their country?  Would you be in constant fear
>>of your life as your posting seems to imply? Do you still believe that
>>personal fear of your life (or that of your family or friends) is an
>>inevitable consequence of an armed population?
>>
>>Bill Lee

>Having been to both the US and Switzerland I must say that I feel much safer
>in Switzerland. Both populations (generally) are armed so it's not just the
>fact that guns exist in the hands of the population that makes the difference.
>The Swiss are armed for the security of their free State and work together
>to train a good militia to maintain that community freedom. This is the way
>it was intended in the US through the 2nd amendment. 

     Mandatory organized militia duty is *never* mentioned, *anywhere* in 
either the Constitution or other documents.  The intention of the Second 
Amendment was to make sure the government did not disarm the populace, 
thereby destroying the militia.  Not to training the militia, so the people 
may be armed.
     If the militia was all there was to it, then Article I, Section more 
than covered the issue.  The Second Amendment brought the *people* into the 
equation.  

>But the 2nd got extended from a 'security of a free State' to the security
>of an individual (Don't tell me the individual IS the state, we'll agree to
>disagree). The RIGHT! of the individual to do what he wants and to use his
>firearm to back it up. If what the individual wants is out of line with the
>majority and the laws then he is called a 'criminal'. 

     A "criminal" is someone who violates the *law*, not the will of the 
majority.  In the United States, the will of the majority must conform to 
the Constitution, the Law.  The Constitution may be changed by sufficient 
majority, but until it is, it is Supreme, even to the will of the majority.


>DJ...


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================