From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Interactive Media Group - University of Massachusetts at Lowell
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:01:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.225312.4046@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
-> In article <1992Aug15.220349.23619@news.Hawaii.Edu>
-> gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) writes:
-> >It's hardly an inconvenient constitutional question!  Go read your
-> >Constitution.  Look at the second amendment (ALL of it). Then ask
-> >yourself if it says, or even implies, anything about an individual's
-> >right to bear arms.
-> 
-> Look at it yourself, Gerard.  It says "the right of the people to keep
-> and bear arms".  Not "the right of SOME people" or "the privilege of
-> the people"...
-> 
-> >The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the second amendment
-> >gives the States the right to maintain their own militia.  Period.
-> 
-> Care to post the relevant segments of their decisions?
-> 
	If you read the whole second amendment you would have found
a preface to the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  This 
preface specificly mentions a "well regulated militia."  I don't remember
the exact wording but it is something close to "Being a well regulated
militia is required to protect democracy, the right of the people to keep
and bears arms shall not be abridged."  This mention of a "well regulated
militia" in the same context of the "right to bear arms" has been
interpreted to mean that people have the right to bears arms in a well
regulate militia, e.g., a state militia.  
	The second amendent says nothing directly about bearing arms 
outside of a "well regulate militia", but some have said it is implied.
The Supreme Court, which is given the absolute authroity on the Constitution 
by the Constitution itself, has already said that the right to bear arms
only applies to state militias.  Until the Supreme Court changes its
desicion, or a constitution amendment is passed, this is how the Second
Amendment is interpreted.  
	Question, has the Supreme Court ever debated if the right to bear
arms outside of a militia falls under the Ninth Amendment?

-> Guns have several purposes:  they enable you to protect yourself from
-> deadly danger, they enable you to hunt food, they provide pleasure
-> when used for sporting purposes.  Which of those uses is an anachronism?
-> Surely, life is not now so safe and secure that we don't need to defend
-> ourselves!  
	The Constitution never says or even implies that the right to
bear guns has anything to due with any of the above purposes.  It does
however, state that guns can be used by a militia to overthrow an unjust 
government.  
-- 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|			      |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant	      | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
| 			      | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| U of Mass - Lowell          | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.	      | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|			      | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3611	      | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|			      |    	           from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa