Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: rape and firearms and death (2nd amendment)
Message-ID: <534@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 21:11:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.534
Posted: Tue Jul 30 21:11:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 21:51:12 EDT
Followup-To: net.politics
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 54

Please note that I have specified that follow-ups shall go to
net.politics.  

In article <> crs@lanl.ARPA writes:

> 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 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.  

The phrase "the people" generally refers to a collective entity, as
in "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."  Hence
the use of the word "people" is not evidence that the authors of the
2nd Amendment had in mind individual gun ownership for use as
individuals.  Also, the phrase "to bear arms" means, and has always
meant, to serve in an organized military force, rather than merely to
carry a weapon.  Thus the "right of the people to bear arms" is the
right of the citizenry to form an armed militia.  

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, as I understand it, is to guarantee
the states the right to raise and arm militias.  On the "individual
right" interpretation it is hard to explain why "a well-regulated
militia" is mentioned.  The oppression of George III was indeed, as
you say, fresh in the minds of the new nation's citizens; they were
also doubtless well aware that armed but unorganized individuals
would have been completely ineffective in resisting the British army.
If you fear a potentially repressive government (as I do), you should
be aware that unorganized individuals armed with handguns would not
provide any resistance at all to the US or Red Armies or the like.

Every federal court decision bearing on the 2nd Amendment (including
five of the Supreme Court) has given the Amendment a collective
interpretation.  If you wish to disagree, please familiarize yourself
with the reasoning of the courts so that we will not have to go over
this well-trodden ground once again.

> 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.

This suggestion is a product of your imagination.  Militias, which
the 2nd amendment allows the people (through the states) to form and
arm, are distinct from the police and the military, and in any case
no one has ever proposed that guns be restricted to the police and
military.  

I'm sorry if I annoyed anyone by posting this in net.women, but it's
an interesting topic and I hope someone will follow up in
net.politics.

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes