From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Militia's and the right to keep and bear arms
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:31:06 GMT

In article <xzcfnf8@Unify.Com>
ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug18.202117.17253@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) rites:
>>In article <1992Aug18.180110.11083@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.ed (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>> ... accoring to Webster's NewWorld Dictionary (second edition), a militia
>> is
>> 2.  In the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years
>>old who are _NOT_ (emphasis mine) already members of the regular armed
>>forces.  Members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the various
>>branches) constitute the ORGANIZED MILITIA; all others, the UNORGANIZED
>>MILITIA (emphasis Webster's).
>>
>>Therefore, the fact that the term militia is used in the second amendment
>>in this context, does not invalidate the "right of the people", it affirms
>>it (at least for men between 18 and 45).
>
>An unorganized militia is NOT a well-regulated militia, by definition.  Note
>Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd ed.), page 1555:
>	unorganized ... 2. having no regular order, system, or organi-
>	zation  3. not behaving, thinking, etc. in an orderly way ...
>and page 1197:
>	regulate ... 1. to control, direct, or govern according to a
>	rule, principle, or system ... 4. to make uniform, methodical,
>	orderly, etc.
>If you're going to use Webster as a justification for OR against people not
>in an organized militia owning guns, you ought, to be accurate, to use the
>book for ALL the words, not just a few isolated ones.

     The term "regulate" as applied to military forces in the 1700s meant
"well-disciplned" or "trained," not under government (or other control).
The Supreme Court has said on a number of occasions that the intent and
meaning of the words when they were written is important in how they
are to be interpreted.

>According to your own
>dictionary, no one outside the National Guard and the Reserves is in a well-
>regulated militia; therefore no one outside the National Guard and the
>Reserves has a constitutional right to bear arms.

     The Second Amendment says what it says.  A right of the people's is
protected, and the first part of the phrase does not modify or restrict
the second.  The right is the people's, and the word "people" is not
modified by the well-regulated militia phrase.  It says simply that a
miliita is necessary to the security of a free state, and the people's
right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

>The suppression of incon-
>venient words (like the adjective "well-regulated" modifying the noun "mi-
>litia") is an ancient propaganda tool, but has no place in rational discus-
>sion.

     If we're going to get high and mighty, let's make sure we're using
the correct definition of regulate.  The term has largly lost its different
meanining when applied to troops, but that does not change the fact that
it meant something different when it was written.

>
>Which brings me back to a question I asked a long time ago and which pro-
>duced heated responses but no answers:  how does the registration of guns
>owned by people NOT in the National Guard (or the Reserves) endanger the
>continued existence of the National Guard?

     The National Guard is made up of professional soldiers.  I fail to
understand how it can qualify for the defintion "militia."

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2630 tx.politics:4365