🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov7.080407.25806@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>Michael T. Palmer argues that owning guns is a right guaranteed by the
>Constitution which the State has no right to intervene in.
>
>He is mistaken, and the argument itself is a tired piece of NRA propaganda.
>A careful reading of the Constitution, as well as the interpretation of
>many Constitutional scholars and the courts is that the relevant provision
>is a Militia clause, not an individual gun clause.

It has a Militia clause.  More specifically, it has a "well regulated
militia" clause.  A well regulated militia is an armed people - it
isn't an organization controlled by govt.  See Fletcher's Political
Works, pub'd in 1749.

The importance of the militia clause is that it is to subordinate govt
military power to that of the armed people.

You can't have an armed people without an individual right to keep and
bear arms.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu