[net.politics] The 2nd Amendment, a reply to Jeff

phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (01/15/85)

I think Jeff Shallit has made two errors in his article on the second amend-
ment.

The first error is thinking we need a lawyer to understand the Bill of Rights.
These amendments, as well as the rest of the original Constitution, were written
in plain simple english for everybody.  The confusion began when conniving law- 
yers, fuzzy headed judges and miscellaneous do-gooders began to write laws by
creative interpretation of what Thomas Jefferson and the others really meant
when they wrote the original.  A real problem could arise when creative inter-
pretations become so gross that only an armed insurrection can restore the or-
iginal intent.  Perhaps, instead of needing lawyers to read the Constitution
to us, we need someone to read it to them.

The second error is confusing the militia with the state national guard.  Any
good dictionary then or now defines a militia as any body of men between the
age of sixteen and sixty (the ages vary a year or so depending on the diction-
ary) who are *not* part of an organized military force. *The militia are private
citizens.*  The state guards are an organized military force and that is why men
on active service in the guard (or the regular armed forces) are not allowed to
keep personal weapons on base or on their ship without a lot of restrictions.
Odd as it may seem, men and women in the armed forces have no constitutional 
right to keep and bear arms.  They can only do so when ordered.  The only
exceptions I can remember were married men living off-base and keeping the wea-
pon at home and single men leaving them with a third party off the base.  Keep-
a sporting weapon on a ship or military base was, and probably still is, a real
hassle.

- Phil