walton@ametek.UUCP (10/02/86)
Keith Lynch edited his recent quotation from the Second Amendment to
the US Constitution. That amendment, in full, 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.
Note the capitalization of Militia and State (in the original). The
amendment's reading seems clear to me--it gives the States the right
to have well-regulated Militias. The ability of any individual to own
whatever weapons he or she chooses is clearly outside the scope of the
amendment. I suppose one could argue that the States are free to
define their militia as comprising the entire populace, but such a
militia would not be "well-regulated" unless licenses and bonds for
weapons ownerships were required, similar to those for automobile
ownership.
[ Hm... well, during the days of the writing of the Constitution (and
many years after) possession of guns by private citizens was not
regulated in any way. What this say of the meaning of the Second
Amendment? - CWM]
-------walton@ametek.UUCP (10/10/86)
Thank you for your lucid survey of contemporary scholarship with regard to the Second Amendment. I have one question: Is it accurate for me to believe that ownership of arms at the time of ratification was self-limiting, in the sense that reliable rifles were sufficiently expensive that only a small fraction of the populace could afford them? I refer, of course, to the white property-owning males who were the only ones allowed to vote under the original Constitution. If this is true, than clearly the circumstances under which the Second Amendment were adopted were quite different than now, when weapons of frightnening destructive capability are available to persons with relatively modest means. -------
karl@cbrma.UUCP (10/11/86)
>I have one question: Is it accurate >for me to believe that ownership of arms at the time of ratification >was self-limiting, in the sense that reliable rifles were >sufficiently expensive that only a small fraction of the populace >could afford them? No. The Minutemen didn't exist in someone's imagination. If you'll pick up any garden-variety encyclopedia (I've got an Encyclopedia Americana handy), you'll read that the Minutemen were that body of men who were supposed to be able to be called to assemblage under arms at a minute's notice. The arms under which they were required to assemble were their own, not the property of any governmental body. Any number of other sources will point out equally well that individual arms ownership was positively commonplace. This weird idea that private arms ownership is something new is not historically correct. >I refer, of course, to the white property-owning males who were >the only ones allowed to vote under the original Constitution. If >this is true, It's not. >then clearly the circumstances under which the Second >Amendment were adopted were quite different than now, when weapons of >frightnening destructive capability are available to persons with >relatively modest means. You have underestimated the "destructive capability" of a bomb made with black powder, a substance readily available to anyone requiring it at the time of the Constitution's ratification. Cheap, too, by the economic standards of either period. Not to mention the destructive capability of a bottle of gasoline, a Molotov cocktail, or modern nitrate-based fertilizers when mixed with modern diesel fuels. All easy, all cheap, all readily available to any Joe Random that wants it. The circumstances in this regard are not markedly different. -- Karl Kleinpaste -------
rhorn@infinet.UUCP (10/30/86)
Serveral historical points: 1. The central and western Massachusetts militia was composed of 1 out of every 3 males above the age of 12. All were armed. 2. The percent of the populace that was armed exceeded this because commentators on armed groups during 1775 note their numbers and that some (therefor not all) were militiamen. 3. Personal weapons were equal to or superior to British military small arms. The disparity between personal weapons and the military was in the absence of cannons, and the shortage of personal ammunition. At that time combat involved using about 2 rounds per minute - a weeks supply for peacetime use. The only major battle fought by a fully militia force was the battle at Breed's hill, one of the bloodiest of the Revolution. The militia was quite successful until they ran out of ammunition and had to retreat. There is also another interpretation to the ``well regulated'' milita. Washington and the other Southern generals were very upset by what they found in Massachusetts. Officers were elected by the men, and officer/soldier distinctions were few. They were horrified that a captain (also a barber) would stoop to shaving a private. Some of their concerns were more than class prejudices. Massachusetts militia was sometimes disorderly and mismanaged, sometimes lead by incompetent or cowardly officers, often would not follow plans they did not like, and sometimes suffered severely from fraud and corrupt officers. The generals insisted on having the power to set rules and appoint officers. -------