Don Homuth <enough@no-spam> wrote in message news:<5lvfivolu97mjmgkncbfnc412muirgsk4o@no-spam>...
OK, I don't want to spend much more time on the 2nd ammendment issue
specifically here since the thrust of the thread is judges who seem to
think we should follow what other countries do. This only came up as
a sidelight and can detract from the main idea. For Don and Bill:
1. The second amendment appears to stand on its own and therefore it
is not at all clear that it refers to any other part of the
constitution for its definition of "militia." In particular,
1(8)(15-16) does not define militia, it only allows that the militia
be called, organized, disciplined and employed when necessary. It
further specifies that the states are to appoint the officers since at
that time the army was organized by states. (The "AA" patch the 82nd
airborne wears stands for All American and refers to the fact that the
82nd was the first division which was not state based but had
personnel from various states. It does not mean alcholics anonomyous
though many in that division do not object to the term. They do,
however, object vehemently to any claim that it means Almost Airborne.
:-) )
2. The phrase justifying the right to keep and bear arms is pretty
much independent of the phrase vouchsafing that right. The right
exists
3. The amendment specifically refers to the right of the *people*,
not the right of any government. Unless you think "people" means
government it seems to be an individual right, just as the right of
the people to be secure in their homes is an individual right.
4. Why in the world would the government need to vouchsafe to itself
the right to keep and bear arms when the body of the constitution
gives it the right to organize armies and navies?
