Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Supreme Court and gun question Re: Was Video about Obama

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Supreme Court and gun question Re: Was Video about Obama
  • Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:29:14 EDT



> So they will finesse the written decision to meet, not the meaning of
> the founders, but the will of the people.
>

Don't think so, Gene.

I've read the verbose comparison of this passage to other such late 18th
century constructions which show that the wording, in the parlance of the
fathers,
could not possibly mean the state's right to a militia.

First, in the minds of the people of the late 18th century, the militia was
the whole and entire population, not a select group like our present national
guard. The constitution of the State of Virginia, viewed as the source text
for the 2nd amendment, is more verbose and more precise and says:

Article I, Section 13: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body
of the people, trained to arms,is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a
free state, therefore,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed."

The militia is the body of the people, all the people, not those with the
leave or approval of the state and ALL of them have the right to keep and
bear
arms.

It has also been pointed out that limiting the possession of arms to the
militia for official military exercises defies linguistic logic. Suppse
there
were a parallel amendment that read,

"A well nourished militia being necessary for the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and store food shall not be infringed."

Can you linguistically construe this to mean that only the miltia may have
food but no one else? Of course not, it would mean that for the militia to
be
well fed whenever it is needed, the people have to be well fed all the time.
Just like that, the natural interpretation of the 2nd is that for there to be
an armed militia when we need one, the people must be armed all the time.

Here's what the founding fathers themselves said about the 2nd at the time it
was being composed and just afterwards:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm thepeople
is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

Richard Henry Lee

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorizeCongress to
infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights ofConscience; or to
prevent the people of the United States, who arepeaceable citizens, from
keeping
their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams

"… the people are confirmed by the next [2nd] article in their right to keep
and bear their private arms"

Philadelphia Federal Gazette (Explaining the Bill of Rights in 1789)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the peoplealways
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how touse them."
Richard Henry Lee

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power isinherent in
the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at alltimes armed; … "

Thomas Jefferson

And so on and so on ... there's several thousand of them.


I'm glad, Gene, you are for this interpretation. You are in good company.
</HTML>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page