From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:52:07 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>
>>Re-read the Second Amendment, sir.  I submit to you that the introductory 
>>clause that you refer to, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the 
>>security of a free state,"  is NOT the restrive clause that you seem to 
>>think that it is.  It gives ONE reason for the RKBA, but does not limit the 
>>RKBA to the militia, it protects it for the entire people.
>>-=-=-
>You reread it.  There's nothing in there to guarantee the entire people the
>right to bear arms.

    I don't know about your revised version of the 2nd, but mine reads:
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Right there in plain and simple english, words that haven't changed
    meanings in the 200 years since penned, it says that the people have
    the right to keep and bear arms.

>It guarantees the right of the people to form a militia,
>and the militia has the right to bear arms.

    If they meant "the right of the militia to keep and bear..." why didn't
    they just say that? If you're willing to learn the reasoning behind the 
    exact wording used, then you can learn what they intended. That intent
    being that all free men would always be guaranteed this right.

>Nor does it deny individuals
>the right the bear arms.  But it certainly doesn't guarantee it.
>That's not an opinion - it's just English.  Read it again: "A well-regulated
>militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."  It just doesn't
>say it.  I've looked and looked, and I just can't see the guarantee you're
>talking about.  It's just not there.

    Do you also have trouble parsing the following:

    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
    state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be 
    infringed."

    Since this is grammatically identical to the 2nd amendment, at least
    according to an expert in the field (see J.Neil Schulmans article on 
    it), does this mean that ony those elected to office have the right 
    to keep and read books? Or does it mean that ALL people have the
    RKRB so that if the need arises they can be elected to office?  

    If you read the two verses differently, perhaps there's not really a
    problem with your reading comprehension, just a bias towards things
    related to guns or obviously empowering the people.

-- 
----      Kevin Langston               Convex Computer Corporation
------    WORK: langston@convex.com    Technical Operations
"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous, you get knocked down
 by the traffic from both sides." - Margaret Thatcher
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns