Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Personal Defense, rebuttals
Message-ID: <395@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 13:46:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.395
Posted: Mon May  6 13:46:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 21:17:58 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 72
Xref: linus net.flame:8844 net.politics:8239

>>> = 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