-Caveat Lector-
On Tue, 4 May 1999, Ric Carter wrote:
>As stated, the "right to bear arms" is about STATE security, not
>individual self-protection.
Bull. Read the rest of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, AND the
Declaration of Independence...
In colonial America, individuals were the only ones providing protection
for themselves, whether individually or collectively, in the form of town
militias comprised of the CITIZENRY -- farmers, merchants, craftsmen...
Indeed, the reason the shots were fired at Lexington and Concord was that
British troops were marching to sieze the munitions of the local
militias, which were comprised of the CITIZENS of those two towns...
except for a few militias which elected a commander, who was paid by the
town to do nothing but command the militia -- and this was relatively
rare, as only fairly large towns could afford this -- the rest of the
colonial militias were comprised of people who were NOT professional
soldiers, and who were NOT paid for their services by ANYONE, let alone
'the state' (which, at that time, was Mother England)...
Indeed, if they had any sort of uniform, it was usually bought for by the
individual, who bought the cloth and had his wife or mother sew it for
him...indeed, that was the rule for years with the American Revolutionary
Army, it was even the rule for most units in the Civil War...each unit
would sport their own style of uniform, which was designed by a local
citizen for 'their boys'...a standard uniform didn't develop until the
late 1800's....
One of the big complaints the colonials had against England, which
figured in the eventual break, was that they felt the King's troops
weren't being employed to protect the colonials against danger
(specifically, Indian attacks), requiring the colonial CITIZENRY to arm
themselves and train a local unit which would be called out when the need
arose...but during times of peace, these colonial militia members went
back to their fields, their shops, their workrooms, to continue working
in their primary occupation...
Back in Mother England, 'working stiffs' were NOT allowed to own a gun,
since most of them lived on land they leased from the aristocracy...and
that same aristocracy did NOT want the public who lived on their lands,
and from whom the aristocracy extracted extensive taxes to enable the
aristocracy to continue, to be armed -- for one reason, the only things
these armed lowerclasses could shoot were things which 'belonged' to
their aristocratic landlord, and so hence shooting it was considered
'poaching'; secondly, at the time of the American Revolution, it was just
about 100 years since England had had it's own civil war, where citizens
had not only overthrown the aristocracy, but had executed a King...so
during the Restoration period, the aristocracy made sure that the
citizens would NOT be allowed to be armed...
And it was during the Restoration that many people who'd supported
Cromwell found it more convenient to leave the country, heading for
America, than face possible incarceration under the new regime...
So at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, most of
their peers, indeed many of the FF themselves, were 2nd and 3rd
generation offspring of the commoners who'd opposed the aristocracy
during the English Civil War...and these men were keenly aware of what
resulted when there was a tyranical ruler and government, and the people
were proscribed from owning arms, and therefore incapable of mounting an
effective means of throwing off such tyranny...
They definitely were NOT talking about a 'state-run' militia, since
they, they're fathers, and their grandfathers, had seen ample evidence of
the ABUSE of such 'state-run' armed forces...
>is unconstitutional are thus bogus. The Founders did not specify
>what they considered to be "arms", usable weapons. Did they mean
>personal firearms, military weapons, or any combative materials?
Are you really so ignorant, or just pretending to be?
ANYONE who ADEQUATELY studies the colonial period, has no problem in
understanding what the FF meant by 'arms', has no problem in
understanding that it meant any and all armaments which could and were
available to the colonial CITIZENRY...
The King's troops weren't available to protect the colonials (except
during the French and Indian War, which the British fought for political
reasons and NOT for the sole reason of protecting the colonials)...the
only reason the King's troops were sent to Boston was due to the problems
with collecting taxes, and the annoying practice of a group of
rabblerousers calling themselves 'The Sons of Liberty' in tarring and
feathering the King's appointed tax collector, burning the governor in
effigy, and on one occasion setting fire to the guv's mansion...
You didn't find any other 'redcoats' elsewhere in the colonies, except
perhaps in Philadelphia and NY, but in far fewer numbers than in Boston
in 1775...the professional British soldier's duty in the colonies at that
time was primarily ceremonial, standing in attendence to the governor,
etc. They're function was NOT to protect the citizens, if any colonials
found themselves in need of armed protection, they had to provide it
themselves...which is why farmers who lived outside of towns plowed their
fields with a loaded rifle by their side...and usually had another
firearm back home, which the women of the house were ably trained in
using to protect themselves if need be...
And those who lived in town also volunteered to be part of the trained
unit comprised solely for the protection of the town, and the immediately
surrounding area...because the King's troops would NOT be available to
protect them when danger arose...
So the FF recognized not only the need of the citizen to provide their
own policing for themselves, but the possibility of a tyrannical ruler
and government seeking to maintain power by disarming the citizenry...
>So we get down to the crux: Are personal firearms or any other
>weaponry, now, today, necessary for State security?
Yes, since to the FF, 'the State' meant power that lay ON THE LOCAL
LEVEL...power which locals may or may not have decided to organize into
town, county, or state units...but the ultimate 'unit' was each
individual...the FF never envisioned that such units would be organized
on a FEDERAL level, with power taken away from the local, county, and
state level...
The FF envisioned LOCAL CITIZENS being called up at a moment's notice if
necessary, NOT a standing army, especially an army reporting to the
federal government...and indeed, we did NOT have such an entity until
well after the American Civil War...
>that question, we need to ask other questions: Just what *are*
>the threats to State security? Are these threats defensible by
>a Militia armed with personal firearms or other weaponry? Who ya
>gonna fight, and with what?
The answer to that is yes, these threats ARE defensible by individual
law-abiding citizens with arms...and as to WHAT and WHO, well just read
the news...
>Again, the 2nd Amendment makes no provision for fighting tyranny,
>so such arguments are also extra-constitutional.
Tyranny was the sole reason the 2nd Amendment came about, idiot...
June
=======================================================================
Let's go fly a kite and send it soaring!
- " Mary Poppins "
=======================================================================
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
revcoal AT connix DOT com
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
It is UNLAWFUL to send unsolicited commercial email to this email
address per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a fee of
$500.00 US currency for reading and deleting such unsolicited commercial
email. Sending such email to this address denotes acceptance of these
terms. My posting messages to Usenet neither grants consent to receive
unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial
email.
*========================================================================*
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
