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

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.

Dave wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:10:10 GMT, JimC said:


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!


If I recall, Larry Tribe, who knows at least a thing or two about
Constitutional law did an about face on this issue, and has come to view the
2nd Amendment as not being so limited.

Of course simply labeling those who disagree with you "rednecks" is about
the weakest for of argument imaginable.

Dave (who knew Larry way back before he divorced his first wife)

Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia" mentioned
in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put another
way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED militia."

Jim

"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. "



A well educated citizenry, being necessary for the civility of a free state,
the right of the people to gain and use knowledge, shall not be infringed.



Obviously this means that only the citizenry can use knowledge as a
collective and the use of knowledge by the individual is not a right.



Maybe, just maybe, the individual use of knowledge makes for an educated
citzenry, just as individual ownership of firearms makes for a militia. If
not we can then perhaps delegate knowledge and thinking to those selected by
the state, for the state's purpose.

Dave wrote:
Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.

Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.

Cheers
Marty

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...
"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. "


I don't see what people don't get about this simple statement. Why do they
try to read all sort of crap into it that's not there nor was intended to be
put there.

If it were written in today's English it would be written thusly - "Because
a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A militia, at the time this was written, consisted of individual citizens
bearing arms - their own personal arms. If needed, a call was put out and
indivicual citizens gathered with their arms to fight an enemy. If
individuals weren't intended to have a right to bear their own arms there
would not be a militia. No milita that I've ever heard of at that time had a
bunker full of arms that were passed out to individuals. It didn't work that
way.


A well educated citizenry, being necessary for the civility of a free
state, the right of the people to gain and use knowledge, shall not be
infringed.



Obviously this means that only the citizenry can use knowledge as a
collective and the use of knowledge by the individual is not a right.

Huh? How so? Or are you being sarcastic. It's very apparent that "the
people" refers to individuals - not some group of indeterminate size.

Maybe, just maybe, the individual use of knowledge makes for an educated
citzenry, just as individual ownership of firearms makes for a militia. If
not we can then perhaps delegate knowledge and thinking to those selected
by the state, for the state's purpose.

The founders feared the power of the federal govt. The founders were
concerned about state's rights. Militias are a state voluntary military
consisting of individuals bearing their own arms. It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.

Wilbur Hubbard