From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:41:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.194537.7677@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.055923.9087@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Your error is in your agenda-laden definition of "well-regulated". To you,
>>it means "competent with a gun". Obviously, if one accepts that definition,
>>one must conclude that a "limiting" interpretation of the 2nd is rather 
>>impractical. But I, for one, don't accept that definition. Well-regulated
>>means well-organized and well-run. As long as the militia itself is well-
>>regulated, I don't see that it makes diddly-squat difference whether its
>>brand-new trainees can shoot straight or not...
>
>What you fail to understand is that according to established fact,
>the Oxford English Dictionary (1989 Ed.), "well regulated" in the mid 1700's
>meant "well-disciplined/competent/able" when said of troops.  
                                                      ^^^^^^

Note key word there. This definition refers to "troops", does it not? Now
look up "troops" in your 1989 version. My 1991 version reads:

	troop. 1. a. A body of soldiers.

>You can
>concoct any definition you please, but the real definition of "well
>regulated" used by the Founding Fathers has everything to do with being
>competent with a gun, and nothing to do with being under government control
>and organization.  

See above. The very definition you cite is limited in scope to "soldiers",
which does, I'm afraid, imply "government control and organization".

>Indeed, how can a militia (defined by federal law
>as all free males between the ages of 17 and 45) 

(Federal law passed by Congress does not supercede the Constitution unless
it goes through the proper Amendment Ratification process, I'll note).

>...fight the government if it's controlled by the government?  

The explicit purpose of the "well-regulated militia" referred to in the 2nd 
Amendment is to promote/enhance/protect the security of a free state. There's
nothing in there about "fighting the government".

>You have not checked the dictionary.  You lose.

Not checked? I have checked, and re-checked, many times to confirm my 
understanding of ALL the key terms -- "militia", "(well-)regulated", 
"security", "infringe" -- and quite frankly, there is only ONE interpretation
of the 2nd Amendment which gives meaning to the whole thing. The NRA 
interpretation implicity repeals the first clause by reducing it to a 
meaningless preamble. Sorry, I can't accept that level of revisionist
tinkering.

YOU lose, "sybok@athena", because of your blatantly-selective reading, in 
simply IGNORING the key phrase "when said of troops" for no other apparent
reason than that it doesn't fit your agenda. What use is a decent dictionary
if you read it with ideological blinders on?

>>Whoa, time out here! Isn't the court deciding in this case to REFUSE to
>>give an RKBA to blacks? With what twisted logic can this be construed as
>>granting a universal RKBA?!?!?!
>
>Because the court said something to the effect of, "We realize all citizens
>have a right to keep and bear arms.  We can't imagine blacks being able
>to exercise this right, so blacks are not citizens."  From this decision,
>we see that all citizens must have the RKBA.

I have not seen specific quotations to that effect. I've seen references
to "We can't imagine blacks having an RKBA" and references to "We can't
imagine blacks being full citizens", but I don't recall ever seeing them
put both statements together in an implicatory framework.

Besides, the case wasn't about the RKBA. Anything said in passing about the
scope of the 2nd Amendment RKBA can be discarded as _dicta_.

>>Yeah, those congresscritters sometimes say the DARNEDEST things, don't
>>they? Thank God we have a Constitutional Amendment process for the really
>>IMPORTANT stuff...
>
>Like the Second Amendment, which acknowledges a universal RKBA.

If it's universal, then what, pray tell, is the purpose and effect of its 
first clause?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20839 talk.abortion:36122