rlward1@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Robert Ward) writes: >In article <bontchev.734981805@fbihh> bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de writes: >>and since the US constitutions guarantees the right to every American >>to bear arms, why is not every American entitled, as a matter of > >Have you read the applicable part of the Constitution and interpreted it IN  >CONTEXT?  If not, please do so before posting this misinterpretation again. >It refers to the right of the people to organize a militia, not for individuals  >to carry handguns, grenades, and assault rifles.    The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you -- they have stated that "the people" is a term of art refering to an individual right, and have explicitly mentioned the second amendment as an example.  I quote:    "... 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in   select parts of the Constitution.  The Preamble declares that the   Constitution is ordained, and established by 'the people of the   the U.S.'  The Second Amendment protects the right of the people   to keep and bear Arms ...." 	- Supreme Court of the U.S.,  U.S. v. Uerdugo-Uriquidez (1990).  Furthermore, in the Miller decision, they only permitted prosecution for possession of a sawed-off shotgun because the defense had not presented testimony and they therefore accepted the argument of the government that such weapons have no military value -- they held that the amendment protected the individual right to possess military weapons. Unfortunately, no second amendment case has successfully gotten to the court in fifty years. However, that does not change the interpretation.  Furthermore, it appears that others disagree with you as well, vis:   "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept,   and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the   United States, as well as its interpretation by every major   commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratifi-   cation, indicates that what is protected is an individual right   of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."    - Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the      Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,      97th Congress, Second Session ( February 1982 )  You might rightfully ask "well then, what does that first bit about militias mean?"  Well, "militia" in historical context basically means the whole of the adult males of the country. (Indeed, the U.S. Code still defines "militia" as all armed men over the age of 17).     "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting     in concert for the common defense ....  And ... these men were     expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of     the kind in common use at the time." 	- Supreme Court of the United States,  U.S. v. Miller (1939).  The reason for the phrase being there was to explain the rationale behind the amendment, which was this: by depending on the people to bear arms in defense of the country, no centralization of military power could ever occur which would permit tyranny -- in short, the government would remain perpetually in fear of the people, rather than the other way around.     "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason    for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last    resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."      - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776        1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).     "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not    warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of    resistance ?  Let them take arms ... The tree of liberty must be    refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."      - Thomas Jefferson (letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in        Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover, ed., 1939).     "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;    as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme    power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;    because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute    a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on    any pretense, raised in the United States."      - Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles        of the Federal Constitution" (1787), in Pamphlets on the        Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).  You may disagree with the second amendment, and wish that it be repealed, but please do not pretend that it isn't there and that it doesn't mean what it says. You might argue that conditions have changed and that it should no longer be present, but you can't imagine it away.  I could fill a book with detailed argumentation. Many have already.  However, none of this has anything to do with cryptography.  Lets get it out of here. If you insist on discussing this, please do it in talk.politics.guns, where people will gladly discuss this matter with you.  -- Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com