In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:  > In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu > (Aaron Ray Clements) writes: > >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly > >and unequivocally, without infringement.  > Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last  > part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem > I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the > amendment.  The Second Amendment is:  > 	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security                           ^^^^^^^ Militia  > 	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear                    ^^^^^ State  > 	arms, shall not be infringed.         ^^^^ Arms  You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the Constitution.   > This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According > to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined  > structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.  Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!      James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "Besides the advantage of     being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost     every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to     which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers     are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of     ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government     of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military     establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are     carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments     are afraid to trust the people with arms."                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789: "The right     of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed.  A     well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free     country..."      Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (on the organization of     the militia): "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with     respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it     will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of     a year."      Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (speaking of standing     armies): "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the     government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be     formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large     body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*****     own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."     ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  But *surely* Hamilton and Madison didn't mean the PEOPLE when they said "people", right?  That's why the Amendment refers to "the Right of the Militia"?...  ;-)  > Your average  > 17-45 year old male does not fall into the definition.  You're right, the Militia consists of ALL able bodied males (and probably females under current interpretation).   > Therefore most > members of The Militia, the one the every gun advocate refers to, are > not members of a well organized militia and therefore are not directly  The Amendment does nor refer to "well organized", it says "well regulated".  I have some targets you may examine if you wish to check how _well regulated_ I am.   > mentioned in the amendment.  > If this amendment wanted to allow every member of The Militia to keep > and bear arms, why did it specificly mention a "well organized militia"  > in the SAME SENTENCE as the right to keep and bear arms?  Correct.  That's why the Right is reserved to the People.  And that was to insure the People could form a "well regulated Militia", not a "well organized militia".  > It could be > argued that the first part of the sentence is separate from the last  > part.  If so, why was it include in the same atomic unit of written  What do Atomic Units have to do with this argument?  Any moron can set h_bar = C = 1...  > instead of a separate sentence?  Oh, I see what your question is; Why don't you read the federalist Papers?!       James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General     Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first     to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a     recital of particulars."  But what does Madison know about the grammatical style of the 2nd?  He only wrote it.  > The amendment also implies that the right to arms has to due with  > the security of a free state.  The Federalist Paper's mention of a > well regulated militia gives many examples of how this militia protects > the security of a free state.  All these examples are actions of a > very organized force, not some John Q. Public with a gun.  That's obviously because you've never actually *read* the Federalist Papers.   > All that the Second Amendment clearly states to me is that the people's > right to form well regulated militias shall not be infringed.  That is  > people have the right to join a well organized militia.  This well > organized militia will, of course, provide training in how to use arms > and in basic military tactics.  These training members of the militia > can keep and bear the arms.  Can't read, huh?  Show me where the document says "well organized militia".   > Lastly, reading through the Federalist Paper's on well organized  > militia it is very clear that many of the reasons for these militias. > One reason stated is the protection from a standing army.  These days > the standing army could easily defeat a group consisting of every  > 17-45 year old male and female not in the armied forces.  That is *exactly* why EVERY PERSON should be allowed to own *any* weapon currently in use in the armed forces.  > Another > reason stated for well organized militias is to reduced the need > for a standing army.  Well, the US Armied Forces have been a standing > army for more than half the history of the US.  But the major reason is to protect against that very same army.  > It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give > the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the > people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit > of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think > how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.      Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This     country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit     it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,     they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or     their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."      Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate     over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August     1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the     establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...     Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of     the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order     to raise an army upon their ruins."  So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy our Liberties and Rights.  -- Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931