For those who didn't figure it out, the below message was a reply to another
in sci.crypt, for which the poster put t.p.g. in the Followup-To line. I
didn't notice that. Apologies to those who were confused.

The substance makes little sense unless one reads the prior messages.

However, I don't wish to enter into this discussion here, as it will be yet
another rehearsal of a long-tired set of arguments. Suffice it to say that I
disagree both with the interpretation of "well-regulated" in the Second
Amendment offered by gun lovers, and what I think to be their distortion of
the same phrase in the associated Federalist papers. My Webster and my
reading of the language convinces me that the word meant both under control,
and disciplined, and not 'of good marksmanship'. I think the latter a
special interest pleading. No one has yet shown a contemporateous reference
in which "well regulated" unambiguously meant 'of good marksmanship', and
not under control/disciplined, etc.

Thus I continue to believe the Second Amendment is a militia clause and not
an 'arming everyone' clause. Others are welcome to disagree (as I know many
do) and little would be served by rehashing this topic in this particular
forum.

To avoid flames, or unproductive rehashings, I note that I've come in here
to post this one message, just to clarify the one below. I'm now outta here
again though I'm available via e-mail.

David



