Guns Figure

David Bell DBELL at SYSUBMC.BMC.COM
Tue Sep 19 12:03:46 MDT 1995


The issue is not what we think a well regulated militia means. It is
critically important to know what "they" meant when the wrote the BoR.
It is clear, that they meant the militia, was all of the people, being
armed, and that going armed(meant concealing weapons in the clothing).
 
This is clear. This is indisputable. You cannot rewrite it.
 
The issue then becomes, if this is the case, how much do you give in
to the allusion of the left, regarding banning weapons which they
indicate will make us all safe? The facts demonstrate the opposite.
 
For more information, query the archives on REPUB-L for information
regarding constitutional interpretation related to the 2nd amendment.
David
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:48:12 -0400 Dennis Putnam said:
>>
>> Phil, Darin et al--
>>
>> Let me start this by declaring that while the 2nd amendment is not my
>> personal favourite I am not planning to start any repeal campaign.  I am
>> curious what y'all think "well regulated" means?
>
>That is defined in the Unites States Code (USC), I think section 215, but
>don't take that as gospel. In any case why do you care what it means, as
>it is irrelevent to the protection offerd by the 2nd?
>
>>  SNIP
>>
>> The problem with the FBI stats in the NRA release is that they are
>> incomplete, we do not know what the numbers refer to, nor do we know how
>> large the sample is, heck we do not even know what constitutes a
>> "favourable" state or "fair" state.
>>
>
>All that was discussed in the original article which was too long to post
>here. The poster probably put the information on the lists to provoke
>thought. If anyone needs more then they obviously should read the entire
>article for themselves.
>
>> Maybe I am biased, but academic articles are rigorously reviewed by
>> other academics before publication for any sign of this sort of "bias"
>> before publication.  It is not a perfect process but the best journals
>> usually refuse articles that contain these errors.  They might be the best
>> source of unbiased interpretation of crime stats, any poly sci profs out
>> there?
>>
>
>As I stated in an earlier post it is quite likely that the article did receive
>a rigorous review as the firms that get paid to to this must assure their
>results are correct to retain respect and stay in business (the free market
>at work again).
>
>--
>Dennis Putnam, Manager
>Technical Planning and Services
>Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.
>
>Opinions expressed are mine and should not be viewed as an official positon of
>Hayes or its management.



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list