From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:22:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.071649.10108@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (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.

>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?

>   "... 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.

>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.

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.

>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?

>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.

Do you REALLY want me to look at "basic English", i.e. modern English, Geoff? 
Quite frankly, I think you anti-gun-control crusaders fare better when you 
appeal to 18th-century legalese...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns