I'm breaking up my reply to Dean into several parts.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Forster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: gun control (newbie) L3
> ** but detracting from or taking away entirely a
> guaranteed freedom as a citizen of the US is not
> acceptable. You're certainly not going to fix
> everyone, but making a nice safe little womb for
> everyone is even less feasible.
>
Why the extreme rhetoric? First of all, let us look at the text and the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. First the text. One
gets the opinion from casual references to the 2nd amendment that it is:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But, it is really
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
There are several things worth noting here. First the words "well regulated
militia." If one looks at the militia and regulation of militia in the
Constitution, it the the responsibility of the Federal government to
regulate militia (e.g. Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 15 & 16).
Second, there is a comma between bear arms and shall not be infringed. My
reading of the sentence is that the main clause is "A well regulated militia
shall not be infringed" and that there are two subordinate clauses. Others
have come up with other readings. But, at the very least, that comma leads
one to believe that the second amendment is not a statement about
unregulated private ownership of arms.
Multiple Supreme Court decisions have upheld the view that I am discussing
here. Its worth noting, for all their touting of 2nd Amendment rights, the
NRA is not opposing gun laws by bringing cases to the courts. I consider
that a tacit admission that they know what the real interpretation of this
amendment is.
Finally, I think there is a lot of mythology about the rugged individuals
who founded this country. While it is true that personal liberty was
important, it is also true that responsibility to the community was also
important. IMHO, one is engaged in revisionist history when one casts the
nation's founders as Libertarians.
Dan M.
