re text of white house announcement and q as on clipper chip encryption for those who didn t figure it out the below message was a reply to another in sci crypt for which the poster put t p g in the followup to line i didn t notice that apologies to those who were confused the substance makes little sense unless one reads the prior messages however i don t wish to enter into this discussion here as it will be yet another rehearsal of a long tired set of arguments suffice it to say that i disagree both with the interpretation of well regulated in the second amendment offered by gun lovers and what i think to be their distortion of the same phrase in the associated federalist papers my webster and my reading of the language convinces me that the word meant both under control and disciplined and not of good marksmanship i think the latter a special interest pleading no one has yet shown a contemporateous reference in which well regulated unambiguously meant of good marksmanship and not under control disciplined etc thus i continue to believe the second amendment is a militia clause and not an arming everyone clause others are welcome to disagree as i know many do and little would be served by rehashing this topic in this particular forum to avoid flames or unproductive rehashings i note that i ve come in here to post this one message just to clarify the one below i m now outta here again though i m available via e mail david in article strnlghtc tr d n n 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 david david sternlight great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of our information errors and omissions excepted david sternlight great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of our information errors and omissions excepted
