From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:35:20 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Aug25.220005.7119@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.060129.9184@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.035353.5927@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>Darcy seems to think that "regulate" implies govt control ...
>>
>>I have never said that. Please retract this gross mischaracterization of my
>>position.
>
>Darcy's right and I retract it.  It is a gross mischaracterization
>because it is unreasonable to assume, as I did, that Darcy's positions
>have local internal consistency.  I knew better than to make that
>assumption and I'm sorry that I did.

No, Andy, it's a gross mischaracterization because I have said nothing that
would cause reasonable people to believe I meant GOVERNMENT control 
exclusively.

You know, for a fleeting moment, when I read the phrase "I retract it", I 
thought you might have a shred of decency and integrity left, and you might
actually be man enough to withdraw one of your ungrounded assertions.

As usual, you disappointed me again. You just used the idea of retraction as
a springboard into more ignorant flaming. I guess I'm just an incurable 
optimist.

>Darcy has been arguing that the militia clause somehow restricts
>"the people", that the 2nd isn't an individual right.

What is the purpose of the first clause then? I don't buy the "preamble"
argument, of course. It's not marked as such, nor is it set off in any way 
shape or form from the following piece of substantive legislation. It is, in
fact, in the same sentence. Can you cite any other instance where a "preamble"
occurs in the same sentence as a piece of real legislation, Andy, either in
the Constitution, or in ANY major legislation? I'd be VERY surprised if you
could.

By your same "preamble" reasoning, couldn't we just call the whole 2nd 
Amendment a "preamble" to the Third, and chalk up the numbering gap to a 
drafting error? That would certainly help to curb this Constitutional 
opportunism, doncha think? In fact, why don't we just call the entire original
Constitution a "preamble" to the Bill of Rights? Whoopee! Yee-hah! Tinker,
tinker, tinker....

>That's the opening line for a "the 2nd doesn't forbid gun control"
>argument.  (Of course, the 1st doesn't forbid ALL speech control
>either, but we're not talking about minimal permissive controls, but
>restrictive ones, to use Zimring's terminology.)

More name-dropping. Do you ever give up? I'M NOT IMPRESSED, ANDY. ANY 8-YR-OLD
IN A PUBLIC LIBRARY CAN DROP THE NAMES OF BOOK TITLES AND AUTHORS!!! IT 
DOESN'T PROVE   A N Y T H I N G!!!

If you're so learned, it should be obvious from the quality of your arguments
alone, and you would have no need to drop names as you do.

>The argument starts with with "the 2nd only applies to guns owned by
>members of <some group>" often with a "acting as such", which is what
>Darcy has been arguing.  To get that into gun control, govt has to be
>able to control the group or its membership.  

Wrong. It has to be "well-regulated", and it has to be "necessary to the
security of a free state", but there is no requirement that it be govt-
controlled. In fact, the term "the people" indicates that the purpose of
the Amendment was to establish an RKBA for militias _other_ than the ones 
controlled by the Federal Government, e.g. State militias or possibly even
citizen militias. The Federal Government didn't NEED an RKBA established
in the BOR -- they already had one from the original Constitution.

The point you seem to be missing is that "people" means "anyone but the
Federal Govt." in this context, but not necessarily "anyone at all". Even 
according to your own definitions, "militia" had age and/or sex restrictions 
at the time the BOR was written. Why then do you find it so hard to believe 
that the vastly more heavily-qualified term "well-regulated militia ... 
necessary to the security of a free state" is correspondingly MORE 
restrictive? I think you've been batting these words and phrases around so 
long that the line between what they actually mean and what you WANT them to 
mean has been erased in your mind.

>UNLESS one makes the
>last connection, the militia clause's meaning can't have any relevance
>to the discussion, 

It either limits the applicability of the RKBA, or it's just decoration.
Maybe you're so unpatriotic that you think one of our most important and
fundamental legal documents is littered with pointless decoration, Andy, but 
please don't expect everyone to share that view.

								- Kevin