From: justpat@phantom.com (Agent of Change)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 19:16:50 -0700
To: rusirius@well.sf.ca.us
Subject: Did I send you this???????
Message-ID: <1P7ZRc4w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


THE REAL HONEST-TO-GOD PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
 
	"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"
		-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 
	
	"This declaration of rights, as I take it, is 
intended to secure the people against the mal-
administration of government."
		-Eldbridge Gerry
		 Massachusetts Delagate to the Constitutional 	
		 Convention
		 August 17, 1789
 
	Rock on, baby.  It might be difficult to convince 
Buford T. Public of this fact, but the Second Amendment 
was never intended to allow him to keep rapid fire 
assualt rifles in his trailer so he could shoot every 
crack-addicted baby-raper that dares to set foot onto the 
30 square yards Buford calls his own.  No matter how much 
good ol' Buford may consider that a public service.
	No, the Second Amendment is much deeper than that.
	During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the 
Anti-Federalists (the ones who thought that the Articles 
of Confederation, the joke under which our government was 
running at the time, were just fine, thank you, and any 
attempt at making a strong federal government would lead 
to tyranny) were against a permanent army because from 
their experience, it was much easier for a tyrant (or a 
tyrannical political party) to get control of a 
government when it has the support of the military.  A 
permanent army would be able to keep an unarmed 
population under control with relative ease.  To the 
Anti-Federalists, an unarmed population was virtually a 
guarantee of tyranny.
	Even the Federalists, the ones who saw that Britian 
and Spain were laughing their asses off at our Articles 
of Confederation, and would continue to do so until we 
developed a real manly government, never wanted a big 
army.  They advocated only that army that was necessary 
to prevent other countries and wild Indians from invading 
us.  Their chief fear was that a large peacetime army, 
standing around with nothing to do, will draw us into war 
just to justify their existance. (Can you say "JFK-Oliver 
Stone-Military-Industrial-Complex Theory"?)  The 
Federalists accepted the necessity of a permanent army, 
but they and the Anti-Federalists made certain that 
Congress had to debate the needs and requirements of this 
army every two years.
	During the dealmaking of the Constitutional 
Convention, the Anti-Federalists more or less won on the 
issue of national defense.  The new nation would not have 
an army during peacetime; it was up to the citizens to 
protect themselves from other governments and from their 
own.
	Why is this important nowadays?  We already have a 
permanent military, and if they can't protect us from 
invasion, there's not a lot that good old Buford and his 
Uzis can do.  Military hardware is just too powerful.  
Likewise, exchanging gunfire with the military as a way 
of expressing your distaste for what you feel is tyranny 
is just going to make Janet Reno pissed at you.  You know 
how she gets.
	So if we can't fight, let's hide.  Hide our records, 
our writings, our past and our future.  Not from each 
other, baby, (that makes no sense) but from the 
government.  There's nothing that says that you have to 
make it easy for the government to read your mail and tap 
your phone.    
	The key issue behind any interpretation of the 
Second Amendment is not "Does Buford have the right to 
own another grenade launcher?", but rather "Do we as 
citizens have the right to defend ourselves against our 
government?"