From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:57:01 GMT

[Once again, talk.abortion is maliciously culled from the newsgroups line.]

In article <1992Sep8.004127.17208@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug24.194537.7677@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.055923.9087@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darc) 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.

     I hate these stupid word meaning arguments, but:

     The relevant definiton of soldier is:  n 1. a member of an army

     The definition of militia is:  n 1. an army composed of citizens
>
>>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".

     Not, it doesn't.  It implys either, a) on employed diligently in a
casue, or b) a fighting man.  Government control is not involved, except
where we have been conditioned to associate soldiers with governments.
>
>>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).

     It doesn't have to.  Congress is given certain powers to call out
*part* of the militia for service to the United States.  The United States
code defines what portion are eligible to be called up.  Their power,
however, does not extend to the defining of the whole militia.  That
is, they can't exclude by defining what part of the militia is
eligible for federal control.

>>...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".

     If the government itself threatens the security of the free state, then
part of the militia's job is to oppose that threat.
>
>>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"

     To re-cap:  Militia:  a citizen army

, "(well-)regulated",

     Regulate:  1. to control or direct, according to a rule, 2. to adjust
to a standard, 3. to adjust so as to work accurately

     This may imply government authority (as specified in Article I,
Section 8), but does not require it.

>"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.

     One more time:  Such opinions are not the sole province of the NRA.

>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?

     See above.  Then look again.
>
>>>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_.
>
     Which, I guess, is very convenient.

>>>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?

     Objection, your honor!  Asked and answered!

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns