From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kevin debates RKBA on talk.abortion
Keywords: redirection
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:42:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


In article <1992Aug24.050720.8511@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <5201@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.060136.27536@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>The militia does not today, nor has it ever, refered solely, or even 
>>>primarily, to professional soldiers.
>>> 
>>> Not FEDERAL soldiers, no. Maybe not even "soldiers" or "professionals".
>>> But not just anyone who coincidentally knows how to shoot a firearm either...
>>
>>False.
>>
>>United States Code (USC) ... Section 311. Militia: composition and classes...
>
>Q: When was this definition of "militia" written?
>A: Well after the 2nd Amendment went into effect.
>
>Q: Who passed it?
>A: Congress.
>
>Q: Is it Constitutional Amendment, duly ratified by the states?
>A: No.
>
>Q: Does it therefore have ANY relevance to the statutory construction of the 
>   2nd?
>A: No.

Oh, utter bullshit.  Next you'll be telling me that libel laws have
no relevance to the statutory construction of the First.  Neither one of
these are likely to be challenged or overturned on constitutional bases.

>>> Give me a break. "All the rights"?!?!?! Do women have the automatic right to 
>>> be President? To coin money? To make treaties with foreign powers? Let's be 
>>> a little sensible on which rights apply and which don't...
>>
>>Yes, women have the automatic right to be President, if elected, the same
>>as men.  
>
>Automatic, yet contingent upon election? Interesting wordplay.

What's interesting is the portion of the discussion you cleverly clipped.

The discussion was about whether the Fourteenth gave women all the same
rights as men.  Then you asked whether women had the "automatic right"
(whatever the hell THAT is) "to be President."  I answered that they had
the same right as men did -- if they could get elected, they could be
President.  The same as men.  Are you going to sit there and disagree?

>>No, they don't have the power to coin money or make treaties,
>>the same as men, unless they're the proper government functionary.  
>
>Nor do they have the right, as individuals. Only the federal government does.

No, the federal government has THE POWER.  You obviously still don't get it.

   Section 8:  The Congress shall have power...

	To regulate commerce with foreign nations...
	To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin.

My answer remains, "if a man has a right, a woman has the same right."
Dispute this if you must.

By the way, I am NOT of the opinion that the 14th makes women part of
the militia.  Regardless of my opinion on the subject, your arguments
to the contrary are flawed and deserved rebuttal.

>>"Sir, I find in the Constitution of the United States an article which
>>declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
>>not be infringed," For myself, I shall insist that the reconstructed
>>rebels of Mississippi respect the Constitution in their local laws."
>>
>>                                Rep. Sidney Clarke (R-Kan.)
>
>Still nothing about women or men over 45...

So, then, you don't consider them people...?

>Nope. Turned up empty.

"No need to adopt a patronizing tone."

(Ask someone to blow in your ear and give you a refill.)

>But nothing saying that women and men over 45 are "militia", eh?
>Looks like you struck out, dude.

I don't NEED to show that they are militia.  The "all men of draft age
are militia" argument is primarily useful for expanding the minds of 
those people who insist that the Second Amendment limits the ownership 
of weapons to militia.  In fact, it doesn't; it guarantees it to "people."  
That term was defined conclusively in Verdugo-Urquidez.  And it includes
women, men over 45, and resident aliens as well.

>>> Straw man. I never said that the 2nd ONLY applied to the federal government,
>>> or for that matter that it ONLY applied to government at any level. I maintain 
>>> only that it applies exclusively to ORGANIZATIONS, specifically "well-
>>> regulated militia", and not just random individuals.
>>
>>Sorry -- US law defines the unorganized militia as pretty random 
>>individuals.  In short, you're wrong de facto AND de jure.
>
>US law, yes. But not of sufficient jurisdiction or precedent to change our
>reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Let me get this straight.  The constitution uses the term "militia,"
but doesn't define it.  A subsequent law defines it.  You say, "Nope,
nope, can't believe it, it wasn't in the Constitution."  Well, since
there is NO definition in the Constitution, what other definition could
you ever accept?

Let me try one more time.  Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress
the power "To provide for calling forth the militia... To provide for
organizing, argumg, and disciplining, the militia..."  Given that Congress
has the power to ORGANIZE and CALL FORTH the militia, isn't an argument
that Congress has no power to DEFINE the membership of the militia somewhat
stupid?

>>> Does EVERYONE constitute "the press"? Does EVERYONE constitute "an 
>>> establishment of religion"? The BOR frequently refers to indentifiable,
>>> exclusive subsets of "people" -- there's no reason to think the 2nd is an 
>>> exception in that regard.

The Supreme Court said in Verdugo-Urquidez that "people" in the First,
Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth, are the SAME people.  I don't see any
language about "identifiable, exclusive subsets of people" anywhere in
there.  In fact, I see language that says that that concept is bullshit.

>>Strawman.  Everyone HAS freedom of the press; everyone HAS freedom of
>>(and/or from) religion;  everyone HAS the right to avoid self-incrimination
>>(even if they've never done anything incriminating!)
>
>Strawman yourself. My point is that not all rights in the BOR are universal
>in scope. I may have freedom to publish a communist newsletter, but not,
>to use a worn-out example, to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. My rights
>are circumscribed. They HAVE to be, in order for all of the various rights
>to co-exist. Similarly, my RKBA is circumscribed by my membership or non-
>membership in a well-regulated militia.

No, rights are only lawfully circumscribed when they impinge on the
rights of others.  Yelling "fire" and publishing libel infringes on the
rights of others to life and good name (a recognized property).  Whether
I belong or do not belong to a militia has no effect on the rights of
anyone else, nor does the fact that I own or do not own an arm.  The
first phrase of the Second is there to explain why it is important that
the government not be allowed to infringe on the "people's" right to
bear arms; not to limit the bearing of arms to a militia.

>>"No free man shall be debarred the use af arms."
>>                                    -Thomas Jefferson
>
>One man's opinion. Not constitutional law.

That's YOUR opinion.  My opinion is that the constitution already says
EXACTLY that.

>>"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and
>>include all men capable of bearing arms...  To preserve liberty it is
>>essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be
>>taught alike... how to use them."
>>                                    -Richard Henry Lee
>
>I don't see "well-regulated" in there anywhere.
>
>>"I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people...  To disarm
>>the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them...
>>                                    -George Mason
>
>Still no "well-regulated".

Damn straight.  These people are saying conclusively that such is NOT 
a condition of the RKBA.

>>"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the
>>United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
>>                                    -Samual Adams
>
>Another opinion. Not constitutional law.
>
>>"I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people...  To disarm
>>the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them...
>>                                    -George Mason
>
>Still no "well-regulated".
>
>>"[The Constitution Preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans
>>possess over the people of almost every other nation... [where] the
>>governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
>>                                    -James Madison
>
>Yet another opinion. Not constitutional law.

Let's total up the final score of those who think the Second Amendment
ALREADY properly expresses the opinion and intent of Jefferson, Adams, Lee, 
Mason, and Madison; and those who interpret it to restrict the bearing
of arms to an organized militia.

Say, you'll have to speak louder if you want the rest of us to hear you 
from way over there.  

(Especially if you're going to post your next rebuttal only to 
talk.abortion, the way you did this one.)
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...