Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Clansgian AT wmconnect.com wrote:

> > 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."

We might all profit if this precise writing had been used in the 2nd  
Amendment. The meaning is clear.
> 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.

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

Well done, James. Thank you for all that. My shallowness as a  
Constitutional scholar is now revealed in all its shamefullness.

Seriously, I very much appreciate your post. And I can see how much  
easier the decision will be in the Washington, D.C. case.

Whenever my knowledge is so enhanced, it always seems to me I should  
be reading something more than I am.