Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!reiher From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: Personal Defense, rebuttals Message-ID: <5299@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Thu, 9-May-85 04:24:13 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5299 Posted: Thu May 9 04:24:13 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 01:29:17 EDT References: <395@ttidcc.UUCP> Reply-To: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 21 Xref: linus net.flame:8944 net.politics:8307 The periodic debate on what the second amendment really means and what our founding father's intentions in the matter of the right to bear arms really were seems to have returned a little early, or maybe it just feels that way. If we really must hash it out again, let's not resort to "*That's* not what our founders intended!" without some evidence. If you must claim that you have insights into what the authors and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights intended, please supply either quotes or references. Primary sources are, of course, preferable. Scholarly treatments are a poor second choice. Research sponsored by either pro- or anti- gun control groups isn't suitable. A good starting point might be to trudge through the portion of the Federalist Papers dealing with the militia. Then you'll know what Hamilton thought. A suitable reference on Jefferson's opinion would be nice, too. If Washington or John Adams had anything to say about the matter, that would be interesting. Franklin, Madison, Jay, Burr, etc. would also be good people to hear about. I'm getting rather tired of the "Founding Father" abstraction. Let's try to make it concrete. It still won't change anyone's minds, but at least we all might learn something. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher