Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site drusd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!drutx!drusd!phl
From: phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re:Re: Personal Defense
Message-ID: <1317@drusd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 12:15:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: drusd.1317
Posted: Thu May  2 12:15:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 04:28:51 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 54


>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

militia  2. in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45
            years old who are not already members of the regular armed
            forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of
            the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps)
            constitute the *organized militia*; all others, the *unorgan-
            ized militia*
                                    WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY
                                    2nd College Edition, 1980

I've seen similar definitions in other American-English and English-English
dictionaries with slight variations in the maximum and minimum ages.  Some
questions come to mind:

1.  How could those who wrote the constitution have intended the second
    amendment to refer to only those people in organized reserve and guard
    units that did not exist at the time and would not come into existence
    until decades later?  The early militiamen provided their own weapons.
    Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that the second amendment was in-
    tended to insure an armed population in the event that some of them
    might have to be pressed into duty on very short notice?

2.  Isn't this another flagrant case of the court dictating legislation via
    judicial interpretation rather than allowing people to exercise their
    freedom to vote?  Doesn't the Supreme Court regularly change its opinions
    to fit the political fads currently in vogue?

3.  To what excesses does the government intend to go which causes it to con-
    clude that it must first dis-arm the decent law-abiding citizens?

4.  Have we all forgotten the predicament of the English in 1939 when they
    had to appeal for donations from the American sportsmen in order to arm
    the Home Guard against the pending Nazi invasion?

5.  How do dictionaries written in that period define "militia"?

- Phil