Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"Alan Gomes" wrote in message
...

JimC wrote:


Robert Musgine wrote:


The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into
execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business
that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a
month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great
body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be
under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of
perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated
militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public
inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself. -
It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and
case law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well
REGULATED militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim

Jim,
And one other thing that is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment
itself. - It's that however you define the term "regulated," it does not
include infringing on the peoples' right both to keep and to bear arms.
Strange how people who want to seize on the word "regulated" as a pretext
for infringing on the right both to keep and to bear arms so often ignore
that.
--AG


Exactly true, sir! One only has to examine the definition of regulate. Well
regulated means to regulate well and to regulate means to govern or direct
according to rule, to control and to bring under the control of law or
authority and to put in good order.

It can be clearly seen that a well regulated militia has nothing whatsoever
to do with limiting the personal right to keep and bear arms. Rather, people
MUST have a right to keep and bear arms in order for there to be a
well-regulated militia. A militia without arms is no militia. Certainly not
a well-regulated militia.

Wilbur Hubbard

We have the usual citations of the "fathers" and the Federalist Papers,
quoted to prove, in essence, that every Tom, Dick and Harry ought to be
able to walk into any gun show and buy whatever firearm he damn well
pleases. As I mentioned previously NONE OF THE AMENDMENTS (including
the 2nd) has been interpreted as being universally applicable in all
circumstances. Freedom of speech is limited by the laws of slander, and
by public interest (e.g., no yelling "fire" in a public theater).
Freedom of the press is limited by principles such as the laws of
slander, torts, and criminal law. Freedom of religion has been
interpreted as being limited in certain respects with respect to public
health, and with respect to parents control of their own children (e.g.,
they can't prohibit their children from having have certain medical
treatments, under some circumstances). The right to assemble and protest
is limited by issues of public safety. - - Etc., etc., etc. With respect
to the 2nd Amendment, the Government has a right to limit the right to
bear arms with respect to certain people and circumstances, such as the
mentally deranged, criminals, etc. Sort of like some of those posting
on this newsgroup.

Regarding the intent of the fathers, Thomas Jefferson's opinion was
suggested by his comments to the effect that he favored a review and
updating of the constitution every few years so that it would address
changing conditions and needs naturally to be expected in future years.
In other words, if Jefferson was living today and participating in this
discussion (and typing his comments relative to this discussion on his
own PC), he would say something like:

"Why the hell are you idiots searching through the Federalist Papers
trying to dig up obscure expressions of the intent of the writers of the
constitution more than 200 years ago? Their intent was to get the damn
thing written (based largely on principles advocated by certain French
and English philosophers) and get the show on the road so that we could
have a basis for keeping the country together and overcoming the
ultra-conservatists of our day (those opposing a central Government and
favoring a loosely organized federation). We knew nothing about the
vast changes that would take place in the next 220 years, which is why
I stated that I thought that the document should be expected to be
modified in future years to reflect changing times and circumstances.
What kind of freaking idiots are you to expect our hurriedly written
document to be completely applicable to each citizen and circumstance in
the year 2007, as if our writings were eternally valid, divine
scriptures handed down by the Almighty on tablets of stone?"

(Which is why we now have amendments to the constitution, and why we
have exceptions to the amendments, as discussed above, and why the
founders, in their wisdom, included a judicial branch with the power to
interpret the constitution, along with the precedents of english common
law.)

Jim