This is to comment on A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all, by Jonathan Turley http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html
To understand the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution one must consider it in combination with the other militia clauses and with the idiom of legal language in 1787. The basic meaning of "militia" in Latin is "defense activity". In the 18th century it was common to use the same word for an activity and for those engaged in it, therefore, in the Constitution "militia" was used by the Latin-literate Framers to refer to those engaged in defense activity, either alone or in concert with others. The Founders had adopted the theory that society was the result of a "social contract" among its members to mutually defend one anothers' rights. Thus, to belong to a society is to accept the duty to defend its members, including oneself, and the name of that duty is militia. Therefore, to keep and bear arms is not just a right, but a duty. This can be seen by the Militia Act of 1792, which required able-bodied males of military age to keep at least one military weapon and ammunition for it. Moreover, it was the Founders' intention that the people, as militia, be kept in a state of organization, training, and equipment that would enable it to prevail if there were ever a contest with professional military. The Founders feared that the reins of government might fall into the hands of despots, despite their efforts to prevent it, and that the people needed the means to enforce the Constitution if officials betray it. See http://www.constitution.org/cs_defen.htm -- Jon Toland ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------
