regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/06/85)
>>> = Shallit >>>Gun control is a legitimate attempt at solving a difficult problem-- >>> >>>but DON'T CALL IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL unless you want to look like a fool. >> >> = Regard >>Or, unless you want to be closer to the truth. The interpretation of the >>"concerns of the founding fathers" is not reflected in the establishment >>of a National Guard, or whatever else you are using as == militia. >>According to the writings of the "founding fathers" approximately contem- >>porary to the period, militia meant an armed populice, as in citizenry, >>as in real people in their little houses, not established governmentally >>organized bodies of armed personnel. > >This is false. Let me quote from an "amicus curiae" brief to the Supreme >Court of the United States, Quilici v. Morton Grove, October, 1982: > >"The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia vigorously >debated the proper extent of federal control over state militias. . ." > >Regard's interpretation of what a state militia was in the 1700's in >INCORRECT. 'Fraid not. The constitution does not say "state militia". It says "militia". I'm pleased as punch that the Supreme Court has considered the discussions over "state militias", but that does not equate to "militia" necessarily, hence the arguments. The arguments re "equality" that our founding fathers discussed (unfortunately) did not extend to persons in slavery. Discussions re "state militia" do not necessarily extend to the arming of the populice at large. I'm real sorry, Jeff, that I haven't time to find this article for you to consider until after finals -- it's a severe limitation to our discussion at this point. But the time pressures are very real. >In fact, the terms "arms" and "bear arms" have always been >associated with ORGANIZED military activity. Check the Oxford >English dictionary if you don't believe me. The O.E.D. is a good source, but not a final source as to the intent of our founding fathers. I prefer their own writing, which outlines their own definition/intentions. >The modifier "well-regulated" in the language of the 2nd amendment >itselfs strongly suggests ORGANIZED activity, NOT the private ownership >of guns. This is certainly true. The founding fathers apparently did intend for the community to organize a local defense and proper usage of weapons. We do not necessarily have this now. >This interpretation is also supported by English common law of the 1700's. >I can give citations at length. While many of the laws of our country are _based_ on English common law, it is important to remember that some of the articles of the constitution are directly intended to _alter_ or _enhance_ common law as it was seen to operate by the founding fathers (I'm getting tired of that phrase). Therefore, once again, it is better to go to the source to discover if their discussions re "militia" (NOT "state militia") in fact embraced English common law or not. It was English law that we were rebelling against. >But why bother? Nobody seems to give a damn about FACTS on this network. >Ignorance, as demonstrated in the inability to form sentences, is >encouraged, even extolled--a sad commentary. > Jeff Shallit That's just lousy sportmanship, Jeff. There are those of us who do give a damn about FACTS. Even ALL the facts, sometimes. Adrienne Regard
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/09/85)
The periodic debate on what the second amendment really means and what our
founding father's intentions in the matter of the right to bear arms really
were seems to have returned a little early, or maybe it just feels that way.
If we really must hash it out again, let's not resort to "*That's* not what
our founders intended!" without some evidence. If you must claim that you
have insights into what the authors and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights
intended, please supply either quotes or references. Primary sources are,
of course, preferable. Scholarly treatments are a poor second choice.
Research sponsored by either pro- or anti- gun control groups isn't suitable.
A good starting point might be to trudge through the portion of the Federalist
Papers dealing with the militia. Then you'll know what Hamilton thought.
A suitable reference on Jefferson's opinion would be nice, too. If Washington
or John Adams had anything to say about the matter, that would be interesting.
Franklin, Madison, Jay, Burr, etc. would also be good people to hear about.
I'm getting rather tired of the "Founding Father" abstraction. Let's try to
make it concrete. It still won't change anyone's minds, but at least we all
might learn something.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher