From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:18:03 GMT

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.u (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>>That is the only reasonable reading of it which doesn't turn the clause into
>>>idle chit-chat. If we adopt the NRA interpretation, then the 2nd becomes no
>>>better than
>>
>>>	The birds singing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>>>	shall not be infringed.
>>
>>>	My aunt has malaria, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>>>	shall not be infringed.
>>
>>>	VM/CMS sucks, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
>>>	not be infringed.
>>
>>>	(etc.)
>>
>>>I for one refuse to accept that the founding fathers simply "padded" the
>>>2nd Amendment in this way. Is it your contention that they were trying to
>>>avoid a page break, perchance?
>>
>>>Like I said, I have no particular qualms with a Universal RKBA. Pass one if
>>>you want. I just don't think you can squeeze one out of the 2nd. It's just
>>>too big a stretch of statutory contruction...
>>
>>Kevin,
>>
>>Do you bother reading postings which refute your particular view of the
>>world?
>
>Do you?
>
>I haven't seen any refutations yet. Just lots of pathetic attempts.

     We have to remember the situation we're arguing in.

     It's one of those deductive arguments you hear-tell about.

Premise:  The Second Amendment is clear.

Premise:  The Second Amendment does not protect the RKBA.

Therefore:  Any argument which does opposes this clear definition
must therefore be invalid.  (And, by extension, a pathetic attempt
to deny the truth.)

     Hell, against that you couldn't effectively argue for the existance
of gravity.

>
>>In case you don't, perhaps you could explain to me what is wrong
>>with reading the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution exactly as it is
>>written:
>>
>>  "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>>  state,..."
>>
>>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.

     ????

>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?

     Clear as mud.  But then maybe its the dust on my screen.

     <Squeek.  Squeek.>

     Nope.

>
>>   "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>   infringed."
>>
>>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.

     A rationale does not a restriction make.

     In order to better complete my school-work, I bought a computer.
As you may be able to tell, that does not restrict the use of my
computer to school-work.  (But maybe it should... :-)
>
>>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, and therefore YOUR contention that the authors
>didn't know the difference between the two, and were therefore "stupid",
>to use your term.

     To repeat:  ????
>
>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.
>
>Most anti-gun-control freaks pass off the first clause as "preamble".
>I simply don't accept that my country's most important legal document
>is littered with meaningless preamble.

     There are a couple in there, you know.

>>These authors were familiar with firearms,
>>and realised that you need to start training shooters young (before they
>>get to militia age) and that the oldsters are often the best teachers.
>
>Where in the 2nd Amendment is there an age restriction mentioned?

     There is no restriction.  But something doesn't have to be *mentioned*
in order to be covered.  Unless you want to argue that all the other
amendments specifically cover such things as well.
>
>>Perhaps you should forget legalese and look at basic English.
>
>In "basic english", "militia" usually means armed men under the control
>of government. In "basic english", "regulated" with reference to
>organizations usually implies GOVERNMENT regulation.

     Militia does not mean or imply government control.  It means *citizen
army*.

     Regulate, even if it implied government control does not require it.
i.e., even if a militia was required to be well-regulated in order for the
people involved to have a right to keep and bear arms (a conditional right?)
government control is not.

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