From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:37:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Kevin Darcy claims:
>>>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...

To which The Rifleman responds:
>>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.  
>                                                      ^^^^^^

Kevin Darcy retorts:
>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.

Ahem.  Put your thinking cap on, Kevin, and look at that again.  You just
provided us with a definition of, essentially, a troop of soldiers, i.e.,
a group or body of soldiers.  Similar to "a platoon" of soldiers.  Now,
look at the word that the Rifleman used.  "Troops".  As in a group of
armed individuals.  If you want to pick nits, at least pick the right ones.
Now go look up the correct term and give us the right definition.  Then
realize that just because a definition may mention soldiers does NOT mean
that a term can only be applied to professional soldiers and not a similar
group of armed individuals.  Your entire argument revolves around word
games, and is about as watertight as a sieve.
 
>The very definition you cite is limited in scope to "soldiers",
>which does, I'm afraid, imply "government control and organization".

Care to enlighten us as to why it is so limited in scope?  What exactly
is the definition of soldiers?  You are going to have to be much more
complete and thorough before your arguments have any usefulness at all.


>>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.  The Constitution gives no specific definition of the
militia.  The government has defined the term the way it was used when
the Constitution was written (the only legitimate action) to essentially
include all able-bodied men (though the government has put in its own
age limits).  Nothing in this situation violates or contradicts the
Constitution.  This is why your word games are invalid; you inconsistently
and arbitrarily rely on various definitions from whatever sources you deem
fit, regardless of their validity.

>>...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".

That is the purpose of the militia.  However, to that end, the Second
Amendment guarantees ALL Americans (i.e., "the people") the RKBA to
ensure that such a militia cannot be conveniently disposed of by any
government, whether federal, state, or local.  And if maintaining the
security of a free state means fighting the government, when such
government has become tyrannical and gone outside its granted powers,
then by all means such action falls under the Second Amendment.  The
government has no authority to regulate the unorganized militia. (Hint:
That's one of the reasons it is unorganized.)

>>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.

Yours is the "revisionist tinkering."  Do not blame your own blindness on
us by claiming that there is only one interpretation that gives the whole
Amendment a meaning; people have repeatedly explained this time and again
and you refuse to acknowledge it because you don't like it, not because it
isn't there.  No one is "reducing" the first clause to a preamble; that is
simply what it is, just like every other preamble that occurs in the 
Constitution or anywhere else.  It provides meaning and explanation, but
NOT LIMITATION.  This has been supported numerous times recently by many
people, and yet you still refuse to accept it, because you don't like it.

>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?

The pot calling the kettle black, eh?  Darcy, you are a hypocrite.

[...]
>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.

And the fact that you personally have never seen this means it isn't there,
right?  That seems to be your attitude about everything else.

>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_.

I don't buy that.  This statement was not made "in passing"; it was a very
relevant issue at the time, but revisionists like you attempt to undermine
such evidence as "irrelevant", i.e., ignoring what you don't like.

>>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?

See above.  I'm not going to explain it again, because you will probably
ignore it again, just as you do when anyone else explains it.  The universal
RKBA means that all American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms
(not that they may keep any kind of arms; see U.S. vs. Miller, I believe).
Whether or not you agree with "all" is a matter of opinion; I personally
do not believe that violent felons and mentally incompetent individuals
should be allowed access to firearms, but others may disagree.  In any
case, the Second is about the PEOPLE, not the militia, having RKBA.  It's
crystal clear.


Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns