Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site fear.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!cae780!weitek!fear!robert
From: robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: rape and firearms and death
Message-ID: <231@fear.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 21:13:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: fear.231
Posted: Tue Jul 23 21:13:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 21:33:18 EDT
References: <191@cuuxa.UUCP> <2919@sdcc3.UUCP> <2301@sun.uucp> <257@kontron.UUCP> <875@ccice5.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Weitek Corp. Sunnyvale Ca.
Lines: 32
Summary: What do you think a militia is?

In article <875@ccice5.UUCP>, rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes:
> I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that
> "right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia?  I think there
> is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms.

The meaning of the word "militia" has shifted since the 1780's.
Then, it meant the muster of every able-bodied man able to bear arms.
Now, it means "National Guard."

The Founding Fathers would have considered the National Guard to be
somewhere between a "select militia" and a "standing army" -- not the
same thing at all.

The period following the revolutionary war was characterized by an
intense distrust of organized military force.  The main fear was that
the Federal Government would gain power and become a tyranny, and the
main defense against that was an armed citizenry.

If you think that's far-fetched, look at what happened to France
after the Revolution.  Napoleon's takeover was *EXACTLY* the kind of
thing people were worried about.

(Okay, I know this isn't really relevant to net.women, but the
question of arms keeps coming up.  As far as the *INTENT* of the
Founding Fathers goes, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.)

-- 

						"Quid me anxius sum?"
						    -- E. Alfredus Numanus
		Robert Plamondon
		{turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert