Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!shallit
From: shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Personal Defense
Message-ID: <444@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 22:20:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.444
Posted: Tue Apr 30 22:20:11 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 07:30:32 EDT
References: <>
Reply-To: shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff )
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 54
Summary: 

>> = Shallit
>>Gun control is a legitimate attempt at solving a difficult problem--the
>>handgun war that kills 11,000 people annually in the US.  Now, you may
>>disagree with this attempt...
>>
>>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.  They
viewed permitting some degree of federal control as the principal practical
alternative to maintaining a substantial standing national army, which at
the time was anathema to many Americans.  They rseolved the issue at the
convention by dividing authority over the militia between federal and
state governments.  A number of Anti-Federalist delegates opposed this
compromise, however, and it became a focal point for Anti-Federalist attacks
during the ratification process.  A major theme of these attacks was that
the federal government might, by abuse or non-use of its power over
state militias, disarm and destroy them.   One result was that a number of
states formally proposed that the integrity of those militias be
constitutionally protected by recognizing a right to keep and bear arms.
The second amendment responded to these fears and proposals by *safeguarding
state militias against disarmament by the federal government*. (italics mine).
Its historical purpose, expressly reflected in its initial clause, was
not to guarantee individual citizens against disarmament by the states,
*but to protect state militias* (italics mine)."

Regard's interpretation of what a state militia was in the 1700's in
INCORRECT.  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 modifier "well-regulated" in the language of the 2nd amendment
itselfs strongly suggests ORGANIZED activity, NOT the private ownership
of guns.    

This interpretation is also supported by English common law of the 1700's.
I can give citations at length.

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