Fwd: [Mail2Rich] Re: 2nd amendment response The Mail2Rich list is reserved to issues brought up in my outgoing mail. If you want to comment on something I write, plz cc [email protected] --- In [email protected], "lt_scrounge" <BrianBroadaxe@...> wrote: Originally the Second Amendment was written to have the part about the militia being the second part but the wording was changed for stylistic reasons. The use of a citizen army, aka militia, dates back hundreds of years before the American Revolution and is still practiced in Switzerland today. English law under Henry the VIII th required all males above the age of 8 or 9 to attend and participate in archery practice following church each Sunday (weather permitting) and males over the age of 20 were expected to be able to hit an archery target at a distance of no less than 200 paces. With a standard marching pace of 8 steps to 5 yards (short steps) or the more common 6 steps to 5 yards, that yields a distance of between 125 and 165 yards. This means that English archers of the late 16th century were capable of hitting targets that, from the results being posted from the Appleseed project, most modern rifle owners are incapable of hitting. Many of the militias of the Revolutionary war era were not "well trained" but they were well armed which is another possible meaning for the phrase "well regulated". In fact, on a number of occasions, the call would go out for volunteers, and more people would show up than the unit could take. On those occasions, the convening authorities would have to determine who to take. On at least one occasion, the decision was made based on shooting prowess. An eyewitness account of the antics some of the backwoods marksmen pulled proving their prowess rivals that of William Tell's apple. One bit of history that seems to have been lost on modern "Rev War Scholars" is that the British Brown Bess muskets (smooth bore) were so outclassed by the Pennsylvania and Kentucky Long rifles (rifled bores) that they tried to ban rifles as unfair. The founding fathers KNEW that for the people to remain free, they would have to maintain at least parity with the government forces should a revolt become necessary. Thomas Jefferson even stated that he felt a revolt every now and then was necessary to keep the government from devolving into tyranny. He famously said that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants for that is its natural manure." So ends the history lesson." Let me go into some conjecture here about what the founders were trying to say. Remember the idea of government as the meaning of the word state is only one interpretation of the word. Now it is completely plausible that the founders meant "well armed" when they wrote "well regulated" into the second amendment. This was not an uncommon usage for that phrase at the time. It is also completely possible that when they said "free state", their meaning was a state of being free or a state of freedom. It was commonly accepted at the time that all law abiding adult males were considered to be a part of the militia as is practiced in Switzerland to this day. So let's plug in those optional meanings into the Second Amendment and see what we get. A well armed (I'll use the more PC word citizenry here since I know female gun owners) citizenry, being necessary for the security of a state of freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, since I used commonly accepted definitions from the time that the Constitution was written, exactly how far off would that be? Considering the writings and arguments for the adoption of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both advocated that all free men carry firearms with them at all times, I'm betting I'm a lot closer to the original intent than the interpretation being bandied about by some supposed scholars. Lt Scrounge BAAS in Political Science with a minor in History. Yes, I have a pretty substantial library. > BTW for more information on gun rights in the modern world, I highly > recommend attending a Second Amendment Foundation's Gun Rights Policy > Conference. Held the last weekend of September each year, the gun rights > policy conference hosts gun rights speakers from around the country and > provides attendees with hundreds of dollars worth of books on the topic from > some of the leaders in the field including Dr John Lott, and Alan Gottlieb. > Cost for attending is nothing more than your airfare and hotel room. In other > words, the conference is actually free to attendees and includes a reception > Friday night, box lunch on Saturday, and continental breakfast on Sunday. All > at no charge. This year's event will be held in Chicago, which I am certain > will not be nearly as gun friendly as the one I attended in Phoenix in 2008. > More information can be found at the Second Amendment foundation's website. > -- To join RichsRants, send email to: [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants?hl=en
