Guns & the Bill of Rights

[Haggridd]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" 
<kcawte at b...> wrote:
>  
> 
> > 
> > Me -
> > 
> > Well I was taught that there is doubt about exactly what the 
writers
> > meant when they said 'right to bear arms' anyway, but I don't 
know 
> > if that's right.
>  
> bboy_mn:

> <snip>
> The Right to Keep and Bear Arms-
> "II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall 
NOT
> be infringed."
>    <snip>
> Me -
> 
> And this is why I said there is debate over what they meant. 'a 
well and
> regulated militia' is not what America has today, what it has is 
individuals
> who out of fear or violence or criminal intent own guns. People do 
not by
> and large own guns to protect themselves from the government, they 
own them
> to protect themselves from 'them'. Them being the shadowy fear of 
someone
> out to cause violence and destruction. I was taught that several
> constitutional scholars have suggested that this clause means the 
right to
> bear arms as part of a militia (ie to serve in an army) not the 
right for
> everyone to own guns. My point though was not that it was written 
to promote
> hunting,my point was that when it was written guns were a 
necessary part of
> life, they are not now. Times change and rules have to change with 
them, no
> one should rigidly stick to something written 200 years ago just 
because it
> s seen as unalterable. 
> 
> bboy_mn said
> 
> Do you think the people living in Iraq under Saddam Hussian had the
> right to keep and bear arms,  
> <snipped various other examples>
> 
> Actually large numbers of people in Iraq had guns, same for most 
of the rest
> of your examples. I understand your point but I think it's wrong 
because
> there really is no need for individuals to own guns.

 
Actually, recent scholarship has shown that the right to bear arms 
was indeed perceived by the framers as an individul right, and not 
one subsumed under a gvernmental organization.

As to changing conditions mandation abolition of this right, I would 
say that once given up, such individual rights are diffucult to 
ressurrect.  Conditions my change further, and suddenly, as wee ahve 
seen with 9/11.

Haggridd