Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site achilles.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!achilles!smb From: smb@achilles.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: gun control and the government Message-ID: <612@achilles.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Sep-83 14:29:19 EDT Article-I.D.: achilles.612 Posted: Mon Sep 19 14:29:19 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Sep-83 20:54:04 EDT References: <143@ccieng5.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill Lines: 44 From: bwm@ccieng5.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: gun control and the government Message-ID: <143@ccieng5.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Sep-83 07:01:07 EDT I recently got a letter noting the purpose of the gun amendment was soley for the formations of militias, and so long as these militias had regular drills and elected leaders, the author felt he would support their right to carry weapons; not otherwise. My reply: Militias can also be of size=1. While the amendment is for the purposes of forming the militia, the language is clear - thou shalt not take away guns: i.e. Because , the right of a citizen to bear arms shall not be abridged . VS Citizens may bear arms so long as they are members of duly organized militias. If they meant the latter, they would have said it. They could have, but didn't. Why? To give the reason for a law and NOT INCLUDE IT as a limit of the law tends to indicate it was there for the purposes of 'window dressing' - i.e. get as many people to assume they know what it means and vote for it as possible. That does not imply that these people (or most folks today) did in fact know why it was there. Morgoth seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm It's marvelous what damage a misquote can do. The actual amendment begins: "*A well-regulated militia being vital to the safety of a free people". The phrase "well-regulated" would, I think, imply that your friendly neighborhood band of vigilantes doesn't qualify. As for what the qualifier is present -- curiously enough, the Second Amendment is the *only* substantive part of the Constitution (that is, apart from the Preamble) to include an explanation. That tells me it's not just window-dressing. There were many aspects far more controversial than the Second Amendment.