From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:49:14 GMT

In article <84952@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>FC> Clearly, saying that a right "shall not be infringed" means the government
>FC> may not dictate how that right may be peacably exersized. If the 
>FC> protection from the government is to be at all meaningfull, the government
>FC> cannot control details, such as who provides the arms or how they are
>FC> kept.

>We disagree completely on this.  The government regulates everything that the
>Amendments protect, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press. 

All of these restrictions are on actions that directly threaten others,
and apply _after_ some such action has occured. A newspaper cannot
be shut down becuase they might print slander, although they may be
fined if they have printed such.

If (as you claim, and I disagree) the Second Amendment protects the
existance of militias from government infringement, then the government
could only regulate them, to the extent that their existance endangered
others: Safety issues at their rifle range, etc... This would _not_
extend to such things as the nature or extent of their training, the
details of their organization, etc... (which do not directly threaten
anyone.)

>If you believe that your freedom of speech
>is unregulated, then go shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium and explain it
>to the judge.

No one would, or could, arrest me for _planning_ to do so. Only after I
have comitted an act that endangers others would I be arrested. 

>You want to block certain interpretations on
>the grounds of "original intent", and I want the courts to have more latitude.
>In fact, I believe that so-called "Originalists" don't really eschew such
>latitude in all cases, only when it suits their particular case.  It would be
>pure insanity to apply "original intent" across the board to all laws.
>Political and legal chaos.

It would be insanity, if you denied the existance of Article V of the
Constitution. The necessary powers of the government can be extended
by consent of the people through amendments, instead of through 
judicial whim. If you don't think such amendments would be ratified, then
you are rasing serious questions about the legidimacy of the government:
If they wouldn't be ratified, then the people don't consent to this
sort of governmental power and the current structure of government is,
therefore, illegidimate.

By the way, "it would produce political and legal chaos" is a very poor
way to justify unconstitutional actions.

>FC> On those rare occasions where peacefull means fail, and violence or
>FC> the threat of violence is resorted to, who should have control of
>FC> such martial force? Consider, for example, many South American nations.
>FC> In cases of governmental crisis, "whose side is the Army on?" often
>FC> becomes the decisive issue. I would rather have violent force in the
>FC> hands of the people: "Whose side will the people fight for?" is a
>FC> far better question, in those (fortunately) rare circumstances.

>OK, let's consider a real case:  the American Civil War.  Whose side was the
>army on?  Although the army was nominally under federal control, many officers
>and soldiers deserted to the rebel cause in the South.  By and large, however,
>the federal army remained faithful to the civilian government of the Union.
>The so-called "unorganized militia" made no difference to the South.  It held
>out only by raising regular troops.  What role did the 2nd Amendment play
>there in defending liberty and opposing tyranny?

The entire army of the Confederate States of America was drawn from
the "unorganized militia", as was most of the northern troops. The
pre-war federal army numbered only 16,000 men. Within a month, the
United States had called up 75,000 men into militia service, and the
CSA had rasied an army of similar size, from volunteers who brought their
own rifles. Without privately owned arms, neither side could have armed
such as force: The CSA, especially was an agricultural society with little
or no domestic industry; they couldn't have made or imported almost one
hundred thousand rifles in a month. This is exactly my point: Control of
the 16,000-man federal army was not a decisive issue, because both sides
could quickly raise volunteer forces that far outnumbered the
regular army. This was only possible and practicle, because these
volunteers could supply their own weapons and were already familiar with
their use. That is, because of the existance of the "unorganized militia."

>FC> Again, you miss my point: You claim that the first clause is a
>FC> presupposition and the second is an assertion based on that assumption.
>FC> I, reading the same sentance, see a assertion followed by a related
>FC> specific prohibition. What facts do you have to support your claim?

>By today's writing practices, the comma usage is ungrammatical in the 2nd.
>Technically, however, the first clause is an absolutive expression.  It has
>something like the effect of a conditional, except that it presupposes the
>truth of the clause.

The comma isn't ungrammatical; it is simply correct for a rather 
archaic sort of modifier (I believe the term is a "particle") where
a noun is used as an adverb to modify the following main cluase. Such
modifiers do not, technically, restrict the meaning of the main clause.

Even allowing this incorrect assumption that the comma is ungrammatical,
the rest of your logic does not follow: Why would an absolute
expression in one clause necessarily have "the effect of a conditional"
on the next clause, and "presuppose the truth of the clause"? This
is your assertion, not evidence to back up that assertion.

By the way, the use of a comma between two clauses means that they do 
_not_ limit each other's meaning. If one clause is dependent on the 
other, there should be no comma between them (despite my own, 
often incorrect usage...) Two clauses seperated by a comma are
_independent_ from each other, and can be re-written as two seperate
sentences, without altering their meaning (although their meaning is
in some way related.)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh