Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc



Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of
Federal Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the
"reasonable relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation
between the intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of
well regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts
have not interpreted any of the amendments as being universally
applicable under all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting
our right to own rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which
would be necessary to defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause
of the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL
REGULATED militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case
decided in the 19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what
they don't like, not something they support or endorse.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...


Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc


Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of Federal
Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the "reasonable
relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation between the
intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of well
regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts have not
interpreted any of the amendments as being universally applicable under
all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting our right to own
rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which would be necessary to
defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause of
the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL REGULATED
militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case decided in the
19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what they don't like,
not something they support or endorse.

Jim



I would take militia to mean what it meant when the Constitution was
written.


The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows:
Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the
militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel
invasions.

- 15. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the
discipline prescribed by congress.


Now it seems who ever is eligible to be called forth to fight wars is the
militia. The militia is run by the States. So aren't are armed forces (with
the exception of the national guard) unconstitutional? But then isn't it up
to what the individual states claim is the militia?


The bottom line is that we need more armed citizens. The government is our
servant, it is not the other way around. More guns means more freedom.


The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society.
Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use
of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to
prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for
example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the State."

In some states their Constitutions say the right to bear arms "shall not be
questioned"..

We are a union of states. The Federal Gov't has no voice in gun control, it
doesn't even have the power to regulate gun ownership. That is left to the
states and the people respectively.

More guns!

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...


Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc


Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of Federal
Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the "reasonable
relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation between the
intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of well
regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts have
not interpreted any of the amendments as being universally applicable
under all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting our right to
own rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which would be
necessary to defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause of
the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL REGULATED
militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case decided in the
19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what they don't like,
not something they support or endorse.

Jim



I would take militia to mean what it meant when the Constitution was
written.


The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows:
Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and
repel invasions.

- 15. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of
the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the
discipline prescribed by congress.


Now it seems who ever is eligible to be called forth to fight wars is the
militia. The militia is run by the States. So aren't are armed forces
(with the exception of the national guard) unconstitutional? But then
isn't it up to what the individual states claim is the militia?


The bottom line is that we need more armed citizens. The government is our
servant, it is not the other way around. More guns means more freedom.


The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society.
Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use
of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to
prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for
example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the State."

In some states their Constitutions say the right to bear arms "shall not
be questioned"..

We are a union of states. The Federal Gov't has no voice in gun control,
it doesn't even have the power to regulate gun ownership. That is left to
the states and the people respectively.

More guns!









Unfortunately the guns are usually taken away from the people who are safe
with them and the criminals wind up the only ones being armed. I fear the
government that wants to take away my guns.

Robert Musgine wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...


Robert Musgine wrote:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc


Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of Federal
Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the "reasonable
relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation between the
intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of well
regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts have not
interpreted any of the amendments as being universally applicable under
all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting our right to own
rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which would be necessary to
defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause of
the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL REGULATED
militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case decided in the
19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what they don't like,
not something they support or endorse.

Jim



I would take militia to mean what it meant when the Constitution was
written.


The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows:
Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the
militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel
invasions.

- 15. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the
discipline prescribed by congress.


Now it seems who ever is eligible to be called forth to fight wars is the
militia. The militia is run by the States. So aren't are armed forces (with
the exception of the national guard) unconstitutional? But then isn't it up
to what the individual states claim is the militia?


The bottom line is that we need more armed citizens. The government is our
servant, it is not the other way around. More guns means more freedom.



Whatever the Second Amendment means by the term: "militia", One thing is
certain. - It's a "well REGULATED militia." (I emphasize the word
"militia" because, over long experience in such discussions, it's going
to be ignored, dismissed, or passed right on by if I don't.)

Jim

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.

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, your views are contrary to the long string of appeals court rulings
regarding this matter. - Incidentally, this particular country (the
United States) is NOT governed by or controlled by the Federalist
Papers, and our legal system is NOT subject to them.

Jim

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:49:31 GMT, JimC said:


Bob, your views are contrary to the long string of appeals court rulings
regarding this matter.


Of course the Courts of Appeals do not, under our system, have the final
word. There was quite a string of appeals court decisions based on Plessey
v. Ferguson, too.



But unless and until until the Supreme Court overturns their decisions
on this matter, the Courts of Appeals decisions are controlling.



- Incidentally, this particular country (the
United States) is NOT governed by or controlled by the Federalist
Papers, and our legal system is NOT subject to them.


You're being disingenuous again. The Federalist Papers are and have been
frequently cited and used as a basis for determining the founders' intent.
Of course I understand that you subscribe to the "modern" view that what the
draftsmen intended is of no relevance today. That is not the universal view,
however.

--- Here's what Thomas Jefferson thought about how the constitution
should be viewed and interpeted today:

"Some men look at constitutions with SANCTIMONIOUS REFERENCE and deem
them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and
suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I
belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It
was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and
forty years of experience in government is worth a century of
book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from
the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40

"Those who [advocate] reformation of institutions pari passu with
the progress of science [maintain] that no definite limits [can] be
assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand,
[deny] improvement and [advocate] steady adherence to the principles,
practices and institutions of our fathers, which they [represent] as the
consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human
mind could never advance." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:254

Jim

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

"JimC" wrote in message
t...


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


Well regulated.... Back in the days when the Constitution was written the
militia was well regulated. Nowadays, some people want to over regulate the
militia out of existence (that's their agenda!).

More laws apply to the militia today than did 200 years ago. I'd say it is
definitely "well" regulated and perhaps "over" regulated.

The question remains - regulated by whom?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

"The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787,
states:

" A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. "

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National
Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by
William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "

Both versions are commonly used in official US Government publications.





Funny that both say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms() shall
not be infringed."

So explain how it pertains only to the militia?



"A well organized Congress, being necessary to the detriment of a free
state, the right of the people to wear clown costumes, shall not be
infringed."

So only Congress can wear clown costumes?

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...

"JimC" wrote in message
t...


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


Well regulated.... Back in the days when the Constitution was written the
militia was well regulated. Nowadays, some people want to over regulate
the militia out of existence (that's their agenda!).

More laws apply to the militia today than did 200 years ago. I'd say it
is definitely "well" regulated and perhaps "over" regulated.

The question remains - regulated by whom?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

"The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of
1787, states:

" A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. "

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National
Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by
William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "

Both versions are commonly used in official US Government publications.





Funny that both say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms() shall
not be infringed."

So explain how it pertains only to the militia?



"A well organized Congress, being necessary to the detriment of a free
state, the right of the people to wear clown costumes, shall not be
infringed."

So only Congress can wear clown costumes?

Let's get down to brass tack, shall we?

"to *keep* and bear arms" Now, we all know that to bear arms means to carry
or be equipped with them. But, what does it mean to *keep* arms. It means to
retain them in one's possession. If they are held in an armory at a militia
headquarters they are not, by definition, being kept by the people.

Wilbur Hubbard