From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:05:31 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <Bx7ut9.4t2@NCoast.ORG>, brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) writes:
|> In article <1d46l4INNnhg@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
|> >In article <720698804.0@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
|> >>fact.  The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantees that 
|> >>_well-regulated state militias_ shall have the right to keep and bear 
|> >>arms.
|> >
|> >Rick, where do you see the word "state" in the second amendment?  
|> 
|> Right between "free" and "the":  "A well regulated militia, being
|> necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
|> keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  (I think the first and
|> third commas are superfluous, but they're in "The Constitution of the
|> United States, with Case Summaries," edited by Edward Conrad Smith
|> [1972; SBN (sic) 06-080316-9].)
|> 
|> I suppose it's asking too much to expect y'all actually to _read_ the
|> amendment before posting arguments about it.

The revisionist idea that the National Guard is what the second 
ammendment is talking about simply ignores *all* of what the actual 
founders of the constitution actually *said* about the issue.  The 
second ammendment was intended to provide rights for *individuals* 
to bear arms so that they could band into organized fighting units 
should the need arise *with* their own equipment.  The first congress 
*defined* the term "militia" to be "all free men between 16 and 65" 
(I think those are the accurate ages).  In short - just about everyone.

The fact that Edward Smith (whoever he is) edited a bunch of
revisionist cases together doesn't alter the original meaning
of the ammendment.  I suppose it's too much to expect y'all
actually to *read* the works of the founders before posting
arguments about what they meant.

In the meantime, the only relevance this discussion has to sci.skeptic
are those aspects of the question which are susceptable to empirical
study.  So, what is the objective of gun-control?  If these objectives
are desirable and if they have a chance to actually *work*, then it's
reasonable to discuss repealing the second ammendment.  

It is clear (after decades of experience) that gun-control has *NO* 
effect on violent crime (or any other kind).  To be sure, there is 
a *positive* correlation between strict gun-control laws and crime 
rates - but this is an artifact of our political system.  People 
notice an increase in crime, their politicians pass gun-control 
laws in a pretense of crime fighting vigor, the laws ignore the 
*real* causes of the crimes - so the rates of crime continue to 
rise, the politicians pass stricter gun-control laws, these are 
irrelevant and continue to ignore the *real* causes of crime, etc....

Since gun-control has *NO* effect on crime, that can't possibly be
the *real* reason people support gun-control measures.  So, what other
reasons do can anyone suggest?

-- 
J. Giles
From: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au