X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:28:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!

In article <tfilt204990@drew.edu>, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>
> "the militia" assumes too much; there are several possible militias,
> controlled by various entities and with different properties.  Article
> 2, Section 2 speaks of the president's power over the "militia of the
> several States"; those can't be "well regulated" because they are govt
> organizations.
>
Let's see.  Article 1 @ 8 cl. 15 and 16 speak of "the militia" and
gives Congress and State some control for organizing, disciplinig, and
calling them to serve.  "The militia" is the whole adult male
citizenry, so here Congress and State has control over the whole adult
male citizenry in their role as members of "the militia".  Art. 2 @ 2
cl. 1 gives the President control over "the militia of the several
states" when they are called to service via his commander in chief
power.  "of the several states" is used elsewhere to mean the U.S.
such as Art. 4 @2 cl. 1 and Art. 5. and since it is not used in the
plural (like legislatures are used in Art. 5 after "of the several
states"), "the militia" is one organization, not 13.  Since here the
president is head of the whole nation, "of the several states" is used
to show this.  There is no bunch of militias here, only one with each
state having control over part of it.

> Because that's what "well regulated" means.  Regulated doesn't imply
> govt control (my car has regulators in it and certain forms of
> adjustment on guns are called "regulation"; all without govt
> involvement) and the 1790s definition of "well regulated" explicitly
> excludes govt control.

Deleware's law at the time to form and support a militia in the state
used the words "a well regulated militia", and various control was
allowable like in the other states. "Well regulated" here unlike a gun
or a car needs someone to regulate it, and the Founders repeatly spoke
of the need for gov't to do this.  Your analogies are not applicable
here.  This amendment orginally was going to be put in Art. 1. Sec. 9
with other limitation on the gov't, not to form a whole different type
of militia.  Since a militia is the whole adult male citizenry, guns
are needed to arm them, and the amendment does this as well as give
them an individual right to arms as protection against the state.

> I am saying that people can't be called into service based on their
> membership/participation, or lack thereof, in a "well regulated"
> militia.  That is not to say that Congress can't call up individuals
> who happen to be members of "well regulated" militias, because it can,

this is hair splitting; the Constitution proper gives the Congress a
right to call up or organize the militia, THE MILITIA, so even if the
second amendment purely speaks of an individual right, everyone in
that "well regulated militia" can be part of "the militia" because all
adult male citizens are members!

>
> The 2nd would not prohibit
> military service, so those are red herrings because they have nothing
> to do with an individual's RKBA choice.

so why was you so upset when I said this?

> punished.  (Instant checks don't seem to be an infringement, but
> "cooling off" periods are.  I'd be willing to compromise on the latter
> in return for round the clock police protection for the "cooling"
> person until the period ends, although hunters might want some sort of
> instant trade in.

a requirement of a check to insure that a gun is being sold legally is
good for it makes the 2nd amendment right healthy.  Yeah, crooks can
get around it, but so can police with constitutional guarentees of
criminals, but law should support lawlessness so we have laws against
such things.  Since people who have reason to have a gun could get a
waiver, your problem with cooling off periods can be minimialized --
if a day wait or so is too long, so could the time needed to buy a
gun.  For hunters it's even less of a problem. I'm not saying they
work (the problem some have is say a woman who on a spur of the moment
goes out to buy a gun to kill her husband who beats her; this may be
overstated etc.) but at least address this issue not nonissues of
hunters.
>
> While gun owner education requirements sound like a good idea,
> practice, like that of literacy tests, is far different.  Moreover,
> the relevant stats reveal that there really isn't a problem, so
> significant restrictions can't possibly be justified on those grounds.
> (Hint: gun education can't affect criminal use.)

again education requirement makes the RKBA a more healthier right, and
if one can have one for cars why not guns which dangerous too (more
people use guns to kill then cars)

>
> BTW - gun owners have experience with "trust me".  If you want them to
> trust you, there is no shortage of opportunities to earn that trust by
> removing things that reveal that "trust me" means "bend over", and if
> you don't bother to earn that trust ....  Also, telling them that they
> are evil, or basing your arguments on things that they know are wrong,
> is a good way to ensure their non-cooperation.
>
> -andy

I'm not doing this; what I want to do is a more middle ground without
absolutes on either side.  Nor do I say gun owners are evil though I
believe some things done with guns are evil or morally suspect like
hunting. And I don't believe my arguments are basd on things that are
wrong.  Using bad analogies and taking things to extremes is also a
way to ensure non-cooperation like a car's regulator and a regulation
of militia is not the same things.  Nor, is walking on grass and
killing snails and hunting / killing deer; such comparisions
belittle your argument.

            -JPC