[geeks] FW: [rescue] UPS Recommendation

[Mike Meredith]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
nick at snowman.net wrote:
> I keep hearing this reasoning from "gun control" (control read
> elimination) folks.  

If I was pro-gun (or anti gun control) I'd still question the use of the
2nd amendment to justify keeping guns for self-protection. Simply
because it's a fallacy ... it just isn't there! There's plenty of
arguments to justify keeping guns for self-protection. It seems to me
that the militia argument weakens the whole case.

> They're not saying "Since a well regulated
> militia is required for protection of the country we grant it the
> right to bear arms", sorry, it just dosen't stand up.  

Can you really be sure about the meaning of a sentance written over 200
years ago in English that could have been slightly archaic for the time
? I can't, but I'd opt for it being implicitly conditional. It doesn't
really matter if it's conditional ... it still means the people have the
right to bear arms.

> They're makeing
> two related statments, 1. A well regulated militia .... and 2, because
> we need a well regulated (not "regulated" as in "10' deep in red tape"
> but regulated as in "able to fire, and maintain good small unit
> tactics") will not infringe the right of the people to firearms.

That's "arms" not "firearms" or do you want to give up the right to wear
a sword ? The right to bear arms certainly doesn't give you a militia
that is "able to fire, and maintain good small unit tactics". But it
certainly makes it harder for a federal government to crack down on
members of a state militia.