Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.guns
From: [a--y] at [SAIL.Stanford.EDU] (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Crime/Living Standards: Germany/Japan vs. the US
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 21:50:56 GMT

>with shooting policemen? Especially when its first clause ties the right
>to bear arms to the need for militias for the general defense.

General defense of what?  It isn't about defense of govt.

BTW - It isn't "tied".

>To you other guys: What in God's name makes you think that the 2nd
>Amendment is designed to allow uncontrolled possession of firearms by
>individuals? If you think that it is so designed, then why did the
>Founders find it necessary to preface the "right to bear arms" with
>the clause regarding militias?

The clause is "well regulated militia".  It was defined, in Fletcher's
Political Works, pub'd in 1749, as an armed people NOT under the
control of govt.

The second amendment, like the first, is concerned with more than
one issue.  As Scarry showed in her University of Penn law review
article, the first part of the 2nd amendment deals with military
power issues while the second part is concerned with individual
rights.  (Those pesky "people" mentioned in other amendments.)

-andy
--