Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: rape and firearms and death
Message-ID: <28757@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 10:29:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.28757
Posted: Thu Jul 25 10:29:45 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 04:46:12 EDT
References: <191@cuuxa.UUCP> <2919@sdcc3.UUCP> <2301@sun.uucp>
Distribution: net
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 46

> > their environments.  It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed
> > freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally
> > be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City), and
> > stop trying to shove your preferred lifestyle down the throats of everyone
> > in the "United" states of amerika.
> > 
> > 				Sunny
> 
> 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.
> 

While the importance of maintaining a militia is mentioned, the actual
guarantee is "...the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed." [emphasis added]

I am particularly sensitive to the interpretation that you suggested
because it is a stratagem often used by those who would weaken or
eliminate this constitutionally guaranteed rght of the *people*.
[I'm not saying that is your intent but there are those with that
intention.]

I find it difficult to believe that those who wrote our constitution
would have explicitly used the word *people* unless that is exactly
what they meant.  Before you decide in your own mindd if they meant
people or only the organized militia, think a bit about what they
had just gone through.  The new nation to be had just won independence
from an oppressive (or so we are told) ruler.  It was fresh in their
minds, as they wrote the constitution, that had private citiizens not
had firearms the war of independence would likely have had a far
different outcome.  I'm sure the king of England, to say nothing of
the British army would have loved to have had in effect the suggestion
that only the police and the military be allowed to own & carry guns.

While I would like to carry on this discussion (and I don't read
net.legal or net.politics) I suspect that it is about to wear out its
welcome in net.women.  *I* have not objection to its continuance
here but others may.

-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa