From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Rights and Legal Manuevering (Was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:04:22 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 founders, with an understanable fear of government oppression, 
>>considering the circumstances, wanted to make sure that, in the event
>>the need again arose for the people to overthrow their government, the
>>first last line of defense, the armed populace (or the militia) could not
>>legally be disarmed.

>Not exactly.  The founders thought the ideals expressed in the first 10
>amendments were already contained in the original draft of the
>constitution.  It was at the insistence of the states that the amendments
>be added.

     *READ* the attitudes of the founders.   They almost unanimously espouse
the idea of the people being a final check on the government through
*force of arms.*

>>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.

     THe national guard is *a* militia, not *the* militia.  It you want to
get technical, they may not even qualify *as* a militia, since they *are*
professional soldiers, and don't meet the requirements of a *citizen*
army.

>>     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.

     The Second Amendment came in *1791*.  The definition quoted you (which
certainly may not be the only one) was from *1792*.  If fail to see how 
*one* year sufficiently altered the meaning of a word so as to make it no
longer apply.

     In the words of George Mason (slightly paraphrased, since I don't
have the exact quote in front of me):  Who are the militia?  They are the
whole of the people, except a few public officials.

     The fourteenth amendment was passed, in part, in order to apply the
Bill of Rights to the States, who were using the fact that it only applied
to the Federal Government in order to pass laws which violated the rights
of the newly freed slaves.  In fact, the second amendment is *specifically* 
mentioned as a reason when they debated the measure in Congress.

>>     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.  

     Which certainly explains why the word "people" was used.

>Nowhere is it stated that "the right of the People to keep
>and bear arms shall be infringed".  

     That is exactly what it says, preceed by an unrestrictive clause.

>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.

     The idea that the Second Amendment only covers the national guard
is a relatively new idea.  In the nineteenth century, during the time
it was only applied to the Federal Government, it was generally assumed
to confer an unlimited, individual right to bear arms.  In fact, that was
exactly what the founders intended for it to do.

>>     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.

     The founding fathers were *very* big on popular ownership of firearms,
and arms of all sort.  They felt it was the *best* defense of a free country
against either an external, or internal tyranny.

>>     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.

     Where *are* you getting your information?

>Cheers,
>    -Ken K

===========================================================================
|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  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections