Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: [j--r--y] at [pwa.acusd.edu] (Jerry Stratton)
Subject: Re: "Well Regulated" Questions
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:13:41 GMT

[k--v--n] at [rotag.mi.org] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>[j--r--y] at [pwa.acusd.edu] (Jerry Stratton) wrote:
>>A people, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of
>>the well regulated militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?
>Yes of course it does, and please knock off the condescension.

Condescension? You believe that your fellow citizens are yahoos. That
sounds like condescension to me.

I'm trying to point out that the second amendment says something very
simple: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. You seem to believe that "shall not be infringed" somehow *has*
to mean, "shall not be infringed for this purpose."

If it meant that, it would say that. The second amendment is pretty
simple English:

  1. There is this thing called a "well-regulated militia".
  2. This "well-regulated militia" is necessary for the security of
     a free state. Why? Because we say it is.
  3. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
     infringed. Period.

You seem to want the second amendment to say:

   The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of
   maintaining a well-regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

This is also simple English. And it would have been simple to say, if
that is what was meant. It wasn't. The right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed.

>Well, I'm not "[f]ocusing on 'militia'"; I'm just trying to ensure that the
>first clause of the Second Amendment is given at least some legal weight.  If 
>you can suggest a reading of the Second Amendment which gives the first clause 
>legal weight, yet protects the right of just about any old yahoo to possess 
>and use firearms, then I'd be interested in hearing it. 

If you believe that the first part of the second amendment has to have
legal weight--that it has to add restrictions to the simple statement
"the right of the people shall not be infringed"--then you *are*
focusing on the word "militia", and for no apparent good reason. Why do
you believe it must hold legal weight? It simply gives a reason why the
right of the people shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say that it's the only reason. It doesn't say that the right
shall not be infringed for that purpose only. All of those things would
have been very easy to say.

>I agree. The Second Amendment RKBA is not limited by status, e.g. "militia" 
>members versus non-members. Hence it is proper to use the term "the people".
>It is, however, limited by the *purpose* for which one keeps and/or bears
>arms: if said purpose is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
>"militia", then the Second Amendment applies; otherwise, it does not. Anything
>less renders the first clause of the Second Amendment legally superfluous.

So? Why does it matter if the first clause is legally superflous? It's
just one possible reason.

And read what you said: the right is not limited by membership, but it
is limited by the purpose of membership. What's the difference? The
people's right is only valid if they someday plan to join a militia? Or
the right is only valid if the government says they will someday join a
militia?

You must have a lot of fun with the first amendment:

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
  or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
  assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does the freedom of speech then apply only to the press? The right to
peacably assembly only when petitioning the government? Does the right
of petitioning the government only apply when religious matters are
involved?

The second amendment says that a well-regulated militia is necessary for
the security of a free state. It also says that the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It implies that this
right will somehow protect the existence of a well-regulated
militia. But it does not, even though it could easily have said so,
limit the right by allowing the federal government to define how that
purpose applies.

And I'd show more trust in my fellow citizen if I were you. Why do you
feel the need to use such terms as "any old yahoo"?

Jerry Stratton
[j--r--y] at [acusd.edu] (Finger/Reply for PGP Public Key)
------
"The white man's liberty has been marked out for the same grave with
the black man's. The ballot box is desecrated, God's law set at
nought, armed legislators stalk the halls of Congress, freedom of
speech is beaten down in the Senate. The rivers and highways are
infested by border ruffians, and white men are made to feel the iron
heel of slavery."
          -- Frederick Douglass, 1857