On 14 Jul 00, at 18:43, Nick Demos wrote:

> Huh?  "well regulated" does NOT mean "self regulated" in any
> context I have seen, recent or old.  It does not say WHO regulates
> this militia, but to say that it is a body that regulates itself is
> a stretch of the imagination

And just who regulates the US government?  Bear in mind that the
government of the USA is claimed to have three distinct parts, the
Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary.  Who then regulates
these?


> These "virtues" amd the benefitthereof accrued to Englishmen NOT
> English colonies. >

The citizens of the British colonies in North America enjoyed and
were entitled to all of the protection of law that any Englishman
was.  In fact the majority, or as close thereto as makes no odds,
of "Americans" were Englishmen.  The right to representation was an
issue, but England, with its "rotten" and "pocket" boroughs, was
hardly a hotbed of representative democracy either.

> That's an over simplification.  They captured British arms
> (cannon from Fort Ticonderoga), the French supplied others.  There
> were more French troops (regulars) at Yorktown than American AND a
> French fleet blockaded the Chesapeake so the British could not be
> reinforced.

The French didn't come on the scene until the revolt was well under
way and the English seemed unable to contain it. The capture of
significant numbers of weapons only happened in earnest after the
colonist began to form a "regular" army.  The bulk of the weapons
used in the initial stages of the revolt were either personal fire-
arms or obtained from the Hessen troops.

As the Hessens were basically feudal levies in all but name they
were more than willing to let someone else use their weapons to
fight with.  Particularly when the transaction was accompanied by a
reasonable consideration.

The battle of Chesapeake Bay was probably THE turning point of the
American Revolutionary War, but this happened well into the
conflict.  The colonists that initially revolted certainly did so
without any expectation of any help from a European power.


> OK, but that does not mean that they all have to have access to hand
> guns.


Neither do I.  In fact I could care less one way or the other.  A
hand-gun in today's military is about as useful as a sword, and
serves the same ceremonial purpose. My points are not that everyone
should own a fire-arm, only that the intent of the 2nd. amendment
clearly states so and that the authors felt compelling reasons to
put this in writing and not leave it to customary usage..

What offends my sense of fairness is the puerile practice of an
elite, elected or otherwise, "re-interpreting" a country's laws so
as to conform with their wishes, rather than going through the
public process of replacing them.  It is rather like a child, who
upon receiving their parent's instructions selectively decides how
to interpret that which is assumed and left unsaid. The usage of
the past 200+ years has been that the 2nd amendment allows the
personal ownership of fire-arms by the citizenry at large.

If the citizens of the United States sincerely believe that the
second amendment to their constitution no long fulfils a meaningful
purpose then the proper course of action is to simply repeal it and
replace it with something else.  Then the sterile arguments over
who meant what in 18xx are immaterial.

Regards,
Jim
James B. Byrne                    [log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited              http://www.Harte-Lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive                  ftp://ftp.Harte-Lyne.ca
Hamilton, Ontario                 fax:+1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3                    tel:+1 905 561 1241