by MIKE DIETZ
SnipeUNblu@...

Much slander has been leveled at the Second Amendment, but what did the
Founders have to say about the debate. If a time machine
could deliver them to our time would the debate last another day? Lets
examine their thoughts.

The critics say, "the Second Amendment spoke of the right of states to
maintain a militia, not the individual's right to keep arms." George
Mason, a Virginian said, "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist
now of the whole people, except for a few public officials." The
Founders made a distinction between state or government militia and the
people when they called regular formations called upon for
service "select militia," and stressed the importance of the people to keep
arms should the need arise for them to be called from the
unorganized militia to the state's select militia.

While the Second Amendment does talk of the state's right to form militia
formations it also recognizes the individual right that make the
militia system possible for the security of a free state. "The National
Guard is what the Founders had in mind" gun prohibitionists
whimper. The Guard's men are prohibited by law from keeping those M-16's at
home, and all Guard weapons are the property of the
Federal Government. Further more all Guard units are subject to
Federalization and are no less the standing army feared by the
Founders, on loan to the states.

This revelation dismisses the argument that "well regulated" must mean a
militia controlled by a government agency. "Regulated" since
the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, has changed meaning
like many other words have. Well regulated at that time
simply meant well drilled or functioning. ("The project of disciplining all
the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be
injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable
expertness in military movements is a business that requires time
and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the
attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of
the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going
through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be
necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to
the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real
grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It
would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the
country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the
people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the
civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would
abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent,
would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it
would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be
aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly
armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not
neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course
of a year.")

This folly of interpretation was warned against by Thomas Jefferson when he
said, "On every question of construction, carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the
probable one in which it was passed."

The anti-gun lobby is fond of reciting Supreme Court decisions when it suits
their fancy, forgetting that the Supreme Court is a branch of
the Federal Government. Jefferson said, "It is a very dangerous doctrine to
consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions," he goes on to mention that the Constitution
erected no such single tribunal for interpretation. He also noted that,
"judges are as honest as other men, and not more so." Jefferson's
observation can be applied to police as the only armed segment of
society as well.

The anti-gun lobby says, "You don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer, you don't
need an Uzi to shoot quail"! Confining the debate to these
parameters, who would argue this?

But is the Second Amendment about duck hunting?

Again Jefferson offers the most profound answer when commenting on the
aftermath of shay's rebellion when he said, "The strongest
reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is as a last resort,
to protect themselves from tyranny in government. And what
country can preserve it's liberties if it's rulers are not warned from time
to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them
take arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots
and tyrants, it is it's natural manure. I hold that a little rebellion
now and again is a good thing."

The current debate is being waged with lies by the anti-gun lobby who want
to enact laws to regulate rights that are above regulation.
Since no power to regulate firearms ownership was granted to the Federal
Government (see Tenth Amendment) talk of gun prohibition
should take a back seat to cleaning up Federal usurpation. After all the
usurpations of King George led to the direct need of the colonial
militia defense system against their own government, the Crown.








________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com