From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:09:33 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 6814@transfer.stratus.com, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <83662@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>> yet.  As far as I can tell, the Antifederalists tried to use the 2nd as a 
>> vehicle for cancelling out some federal powers in Article I, and they failed.
>
>But given that you're such a big proponent of re-interpreting the
>Constitution in light of the contemporary meaning of the words, perhaps
>they DID succeed, and the language just hasn't evolved far enough yet.
>Think about that while you're trying to sleep tonight.

I'm not such a "big proponent" of reinterpreting the Constitution as you think.
What I've said is that the courts do not (and should not) apply "original intent"
as the sole (or even necessarily major) criterion of interpretation.  In fact,
our present system of government has been based on a lot of questionable interpre-
tations and reinterpretations of law.  Witness the current situation in which 
women have a legal right to abortions, by Supreme Court interpretation, and they
are probably going to lose it, also by Supreme Court interpretation.  What the
Court giveth, it taketh away.  Despite all of this, you are not going to get a 
better system by rushing to amend the Constitution every time somebody disagrees
with whatever the Court majority thinks Madison or Elbridge Gerry meant in some
speech delivered in the 18th century.  If you were to follow "original intent"
to its logical conclusion, applying it consistently across the Constitution, then
you would produce chaos in our current system, which has evolved over two centuries.
And civil libertarians would be among the loudest complainers at the changes.  I
lose more sleep at the thought of adopting "original intent" than I do at the 
antics of a Supreme Court packed with conservative Republicans.

>> What kind
>> of militia training do you envision for this militia and who should be 
>> responsible for organizing it? 
>
>What's wrong with us being responsible for organizing our own?  Are you
>still waiting on the local parish priest to do it?

I understand that it is illegal in most (all?) states to train private armies.
I personally think that the practice, on a small scale, smacks of vigilantism.

>> So now, apparently, you have built up in your minds that it is possible to
>> resurrect the now-defunct concept of a "Minute Man" style of militia.)
>
>Defunct, is it?  Consider your local police department.  Aside from the
>fact that they are rarely capable of getting to the scene within a minute;
>but then again, it was hyperbole in the Colonial days too.

So was the myth that they were an effective defense against the British.  It was
the Continental regulars, backed by a professional French army and navy, that did
the trick.  The local police department consists of professionals, not amateurs
who can be called to duty on a moment's notice.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA