Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!cdt
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption
Date: 21 Apr 1993 20:50:00 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 27
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <1r4c1o$408@transfer.stratus.com>
References: <bontchev.734981805@fbihh> <1993Apr19.130132.12650@afterlife.ncsc.mil> <1993Apr20.012048.1705@shearson.com> <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

> Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
> a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
> in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Though David Sternlight pushes the envelope of credibility by claiming that
talk.politics.guns is not the place to discuss guns, or the meaning of the
Second Amendment, it seems he would rather post to millions of people out 
of relative ignorance of the subject than to follow the currently active 
threads discussing EXACTLY this topic which at least explore the fallacies 
of his erroneous claim, and at most explode them.

Basic fact #1, Mr. Sternlight:  The RIGHT described is a "right of the people
to keep and bear arms;" not a "right of the people to form a militia," a
"right of a militia to keep and bear arms," or a "right of well-regulated
people to keep and bear arms."  This should be apparent from a simple
reading of the sentence.

For the other arguments, I suggest you check out the thread, "Some more
about gun control," playing now in an alt.politics.usa.constitution
near you.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

