On Mar 24, 9:50Â pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Mar 24, 1:12Â am, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Mar 23, 9:47 pm, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>
>>> First of all, DC ain't no state. Â They have no senators of their own,
>>> just some representing _other_ states, or more accurately, outside the
>>> beltway bandits.
>
>>> Second, it would be very difficult to regulate a DC militia as
>>> everyone can just go to Virginia and buy an AK-47.
>
>>> Third, do libertarians REALLY want the nation's seat of gummint to be
>>> armed?
>
>>> Bret Cahill
>
>> Wikipedia did a pretty good job on this subject, at least as an
>> introduction, I liked these points;
>
>> ...the origin of the term bear arms: "By legal and other channels, the
>> Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war.
>> Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can
>> call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms."
>> Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use
>> echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms
>> (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to
>> lay down arms (arma pOEnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother
>> chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes
>> the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not bear arms against a
>> rabbit...".
>
>> ...The right to keep and bear arms did not originate fully-formed in
>> the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the
>> codification of the six centuries old responsibility to keep and bear
>> arms for king and country
This is of course rubbish since English law recognised a right to
keep and bear arms that was not limited to using them to defend the
country. How can a responsibility be a right?
>> that was inherited from the English
>> Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the
>> Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II.
>> Through being codified in the United States Constitution, the common
>> law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory
>> law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-
>> existing common law right to keep and bear arms...
>
>
> The interesting interpretation is the insurrectionist model since it
> would be difficult to argue that a handgun in the house would be
> useful in such an application.
Actually no it wouldn't. Handguns are useful for ambushing
occupation
troops.
> In fact, any interpretation would imply
> (in an honest court) restrictions which are currently opposed by
> NRA.
Such as what? In fact it would imply that most of the restrictions
are
invalid e.g. requiring identification to buy guns, restrictions on
full-auto
weaponry and sawn-off shotguns etc.
>
> What interpretation would allow for carrying a handgun to the mall or
> a baseball game, for example?
Well the militia is supposed to be able to assemble quickly. If
you
have to go home to get your gun that takes more time. It may even be
impossible if for instance the militia is being called up to
counteract
a riot between you and your house.
> Clearly, the risk of causing panic is in
> the same class as crying "fire" in such a situation.
>
Err... no. The fact that someone has a gun is nowhere near as
panic inducing (to rational people anyway) as the fact that there is
a fire in a crowded place that is difficult to get everyone out of.
> Of course, I said "honest court"....
>
> -tg-
By honest you mean what, agrees with you?
