From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:44:06 GMT

I should know better than to try to engage in argument someone whose
obvious arrogance is such that he cannot abide any contradiction,
however, here goes.  (Oh yes, talk.abortion removed as irrelevant
unless retroactive.)

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.071649.10108@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>Do you bother reading postings which refute your particular view of the 
>>world?  

>Do you?

Yes, and unlike you I don't automatically assume that they are wrong.

>>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.

How have I agreed that the "militia" limits "the people" used later?
In a practical sense, of course the militia is a subset of the people.
Is a babe in arms going to wield a gun?  Is a bedridden geriatric
going to be able to march and fight?  Of course not.  However, accepting
that there are people who are, for various reasons, excluded from 
militia service is _not_ the same as accepting that those people are
thereby deprived of a clearly-expressed right.

>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?

If you've been following other postings, such as
those from Richard Wojcik, you'd have seen a much better discussion of
the usage of "well-regulated" than you've come up with.  It obviously
meant more than just well-trained, more than just well-controlled  -
indeed, I think Richard's interpretation of "smooth-running" is probably
about the best I've seen.

>>   "... 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.

Covered above.

>>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.

No, Kevin, my contention is precisely the opposite of what you've
somehow managed to interpret.  To ensure the capabilities of a
what would at any given time be a subset of the people, the right 
is reserved to the people as a whole.  Is that clear enough?

>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.

At last, a clear statement of your contention.  If that were the case,
why did they not say "... the right of the militia ..."?  As you say,
they did know the difference.

>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.

Why do you see it as meaningless?  I don't.  In what I wrote above I
assigned a clear and specific meaning to it, namely to emphasise the
importance of a right which is reserved to the people as a whole.

>>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?

By asserting that the right only applies to the militia you are asserting
an age restriction _unless_ you take the view that the militia is 
everyone.

>>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.

May I refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary, which (despite
Richard's caveat that Aemerican and English usage sometimes differ) is
still one of the best references we have.  You are talking about
"regulated", but the phrase "well regulated" has its own meanings.
Are you suggesting that a "well regulated clock", for example, is
controlled by 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...

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au) | "The first duty of power is to perpetuate
Computer Centre                    | itself.  The first duty of free men is to
Australian Defence Force Academy   | resist it."  Mike Resnick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns