On 13 Jul 2000, at 0:04, Wirt Atmar wrote:

> That would be true if the phrase weren't a "well-regulated"
> militia. A well disciplined, well-regulated militia, controlled
> and regulated by the State governor, capable of being called into
> Federal service, was the intent, never merely a heavily armed
> populace capable of performing acts of mayhem on each other.

Wirt,

The devil always comes grabbed in sophistication and cloaked
in reasonableness.  It was always thus and always shall be.
The prevention of denial of weapons to the citizens of the USA
was always the primary concern of the draughters of the 2nd
amendment to the US constitution.  Well regulated or ordered
refers to behaviour, not control by the state.  That is an
interpretation of the word regulation that post-dates the civil
war, when the influence of the US federal government began
its so-far unceasing extensions of its powers.

What is really going on with this debate is an unwillingness of
the current generation to accept that the framers of the US
constitution really meant what they wrote.  That having
successfully overthrown one tyranny they had no intention of
allowing another to arise and take its place.  Even a cursory
review of the federalist papers and other contemporary
documents makes it clear that there is no question that these
people feared such an occurrence more than any other threat,
and deemed it far more likely.

The people that framed the constitution of the USA had just
successfully revolted against one of the most lawful and
enlightened counties of Europe.  One that would ban slavery in
all areas under its control fully forty years before the USA
themselves.  One that had given the world the concept of
habeas corpus to begin with.  One whose monarch was
subject to the control and approval of an elected house of
commons.  Yet, despite living in an empire governed with all
these virtues, the future citizens of the future USA valued their
liberty and the right to self-determination over comfort and
peace.

The Minute-men accomplished this with out a government,
without a standing army, without access to military arms.  To
claim 200 years later that these people did not intend that
every able citizen would maintain the means to rise against
tyranny is not creditable.

The claim that those who framed the document were unable to
foretell the world wars to come, the rise of communism, the
advent of mass destruction, or other political developments is
not germaine to the issue.  They saw, and all too clearly, that
a prosperous people will shirk from the duties and
responsibilities that go with freedom.  They saw with
remarkable foresight that following generations would be
unwilling to renew the "Tree of Liberty" with the "blood of
patriots".  They knew from their own knowledge of history what
happens to a people that trade "liberty for security."  They
knew that the temptations to do just that, in the absence of
strong prohibitions to the contrary, would inevitably result in
just that.  After all, they were not reasonable men.

A reasonable man does not stand up against the status quo.
A reasonable man does not openly oppose that which is
generally accepted. A reasonable man does not stand up for
his beliefs and suffer the approbation, ridicule, and persecution
of his fellows.  A reasonable man does not put his life at risk
over a matter of conscience.

In short, the world does not advance on the backs of
reasonable men.  It only moves forward kicking, and
screaming, and resisting; by the implacable advance of
unreasonable men.  If something proposed by a powerful
organization seems reasonable to right thinking people, then it
is probably something to be greatly feared.

Sincerely
---   *** e-mail is not a secure channel ***
James B. Byrne                Harte & Lyne Limited
vox: +1 905 561 1241          9 Brockley Drive
fax: +1 905 561 0757          Hamilton, Ontario
mailto:[log in to unmask]  Canada L8E 3C3