From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Rights and Legal Manuevering (Was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:41:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.192145.16282@sdc.com>, kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

> In article <veal.138@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >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.

An interesting perspective.  Let's rewrite the 2nd to fit that:

"A well regulated Federal Army, being necessary to the free _State_, the
right of the Federal Army to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now *that* certaintly protects the *free* State!  ;-)  How do the individual
States protect themselves from the Feds?...

> >     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.

And Article IV, section 2, paragraph 1, predates the 2nd, as part
of the original Constitution.  This clause extends the privileges and
immunities guaranteed under the Constitution, and elsewhere, to all U.S.
Citizens.  The 14th Amendment reiterates this guarantee.

> >     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.

Nonsense.  Read the Constitution again.

> >     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.

Nonsense.  If that were the case, then the supreme Court would not refer
to the Federalist papers when ruling.

> >     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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, dating back to about 1787.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Scripter                   *      cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics                    *
Michigan Technological University  *
Houghton, MI 49931                 *
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:143 alt.politics.elections:8749