home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4557 comp.org.eff.talk:6907 alt.privacy:2175 talk.politics.guns:23887
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!andy
- From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
- Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
- Message-ID: <1992Nov10.210612.8299@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
- Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
- References: <1992Nov6.172823.1015@netcom.com> <palmer.721081324@news.larc.nasa.gov> <1992Nov7.080407.25806@netcom.com>
- Distribution: inet
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:06:12 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1992Nov7.080407.25806@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
- >Michael T. Palmer argues that owning guns is a right guaranteed by the
- >Constitution which the State has no right to intervene in.
- >
- >He is mistaken, and the argument itself is a tired piece of NRA propaganda.
- >A careful reading of the Constitution, as well as the interpretation of
- >many Constitutional scholars and the courts is that the relevant provision
- >is a Militia clause, not an individual gun clause.
-
- It has a Militia clause. More specifically, it has a "well regulated
- militia" clause. A well regulated militia is an armed people - it
- isn't an organization controlled by govt. See Fletcher's Political
- Works, pub'd in 1749.
-
- The importance of the militia clause is that it is to subordinate govt
- military power to that of the armed people.
-
- You can't have an armed people without an individual right to keep and
- bear arms.
-
- -andy
- --
- UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
- ARPA: andy@cs.stanford.edu
-