From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:05:28 GMT

I see Kevin is still cross posting all his literature to talk.abortion
Perhaps Kevin should sign up to talk.politics.guns if he wishes to
continue this discussion.

>>> Followups to: talk.politics.guns <<<


In article <1992Sep8.022249.17966@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

> In article <1992Aug24.071649.10108@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>
> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
> 
> >i.e. in order that there shall be a sufficient number of people of militia
> >age around who have guns and know what to do with them,
> 
> Ah, so you *DO* agree that "militia" limits the phrase "the people", eh?
> Very revealing. Very revealing indeed.

An interesting conclusion, but Geoff never said that "militia"
_LIMITS_ the phrase "the people".  You fall into one of the most
basic fallacies of logic: IF A -> B does not imply IF B -> A.
("an armed people is required for a militia", does not imply
"a militia is required for an armed people").

> Now, what about the "well-regulated" part? How do you suppose that fits
> into this whole thing? And how about the "necessary to the security of a
> free state" part? Starting to get the picture now?

You have yet to deal with the first part, so why are you trying to
sidetrack everyone to the "well-regulated" part?  This has already
been beat to death, if you read any of the other posts...

> >the right of the people as a whole (which is how "the people" is used
> >everywhere else) shall not be infringed.  
> 
> Whoa, you just said above "people of militia age", and now you're appealing
> to some "generic" interpretation of "the people"??? Please make up your
> mind -- either the term "the people" is specially qualified in the 2nd
> Amendment, or it's not. You can't have it BOTH ways.

And your logic is still faulty, in the same manner as before.

> >Do you assume that the authors
> >of the 2nd were so stupid that they did not know the difference between
> >"the militia" and "the people"?  
> 
> But it's YOUR contention that the term "militia", as used in the first
> clause, refers to exactly the same subset of human beings as "the people"
> as used in the second,

Nowhere does Geoff make that statement.  It's quite obvious that the
"militia" in the first cluase, is a subset of "the people" mentioned
in the second clause.

If we take your interpretation, a 17 year old can be recruited to
do battle, but won't have had any training since he can't train until
he's militia age (17).  That's a very good way to fill body bags.

> and therefore YOUR contention that the authors
> didn't know the difference between the two, and were therefore "stupid",
> to use your term.

And this is clearly your contention, since Geoff did not make
this statement, either.  Either you didn't understand what Geoff
was saying, or you are spreading blatant lies.

> My point, _contra_ yours, was that the authors knew EXACTLY what the
> difference was, and in fact it was this very difference which compelled 
> them to put the first clause in there so that future generations would
> know exactly what subset of "the people" they were talking about.

If "the people" are a subset, which subset of "the people" does the 4th
Amendment refer to?  How about the 1st?  Who would *ever* use the term
"the people" as an indirect reference to *any* subset of people?
Your argument might hold water if the had said "...the right of theSE
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", but they didn't.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser