Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: personal defense
Message-ID: <391@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 15:08:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.391
Posted: Thu May  2 15:08:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 04:17:09 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 36
Xref: linus net.flame:8736 net.politics:8137

[Edited for re-transmission, re the constitutionality of guns & gun control:

>       I'm probably 'way off base here, BUT.... if memory serves (I only
>   carry crayons with me, not books) the wording is: "A well-regulated
>   militia being necessary to the....".  Well-regulated.
>       Opinion:  The NRA isn't well-regulated.  Powerful, influential,
>       etc., but not well-regulated.  The National Guard is (supposed to
>       be, anyway; I'm NOT commenting from personal experience).
>   to me, though.  Anyway, it's the intent when writing that matters,
>   My belief is that the author(s)
>   of the Bill of Rights intended that there should always be some
>   form of civil defense ("well-regulated militia"), not necessarily
>   that the current band of gun-toting agrarians [:-)] qualified.
>       =shp

True that the NRA isn't well regulated in any modern sense -- and, of
course, one of the current controversies is over what the founding fathers
meant by well-regulated (among all the other controversies).  Since they
did _not_ mean "government regulated", we are left trying to figure out who
was/is to do the regulating.  They had a greater experience with local (=
community) "organization", so one may deduce that they were referring to
township regulation of this militia. Of course, one might also be wrong.

The NRA _is_, however, one of the few organizations that consistantly offers
safety classes.  Safety increases "personal" regulation, though does not
provide the contextual requirements of the constitution.  (I'm not at all
sure that everyone, including gun-controllers, would be comfortable if the
"regulation" were within the jurisdiction of the NRA, but it is nice to
know that they focus strongly on safety.)

I believe the article I'll be searching for after finals also contains some
mention of a controversy that the founding fathers had over whether or not
to REQUIRE that any male over the age of 16 own a gun and know how to use
it.  THAT would have changed the face of the nation, wouldn't it?!?!

I'll find the article and mail/post it.  It's interesting stuff.