From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:47:34 GMT

In article <83912@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>>...That is, it [the Second Amendment] "is intended
>>to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government..."
>>As Mr. Gerry said during the House debate over the proposed Amendment.

>Elbridge Gerry spoke for his own interpretation of the 2nd, not everybody's.
>As a dyed-in-the-wool Antifederalist, he bitterly opposed the Constitution
>and did all that he could to weaken the federal government. 

His remark about the Second Amendment, however, does _not_ claim it
weakens the federal government. In fact, he seemed to think that the
federal government's authority over the militia was unaltered by
the Second. Since this goes completely against his political biases and
desires (to remove federal powers), it would seem that even Gerry 
didn't think the Second Amendment protected state-controled militias.
 
>The majority of
>the representatives who approved the Amendments were Federalists, who resisted
>(successfully) all attempts to restrict the power of the federal government to
>control state militias.

So, we seem to agree: Both the Federalists and anti-federalists didn't
think the Second Amendment protected state-controled militias. However,
the second clause clearly protects _something_ (presumably something
related to the militia) from federal infringement. It would be insane
to suggest the federal government was thereby barred from infringing
on the federally organized militia. Can you offer _any_ interpertation
of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", that fits these
facts? (E.g. that it does not refer to state-controled militias, has
some relation to militias and was made independent from federal
infringement) Certainly, the right of individual citizens to own 
firearms fits the known facts: Individual citizens are not a state-
controled militia, their ownership of guns contributes to militias (e.g.
an armed citizenry) and there is no contradiction to putting this
right outside of federal jurisdiction.

>I'm glad that you now have elevated the preamble to the
>RKBA to an "assertion."  I would have called it a presupposition, but we agree
>that it has relevance to the interpretation of the 2nd. 

A presupposition is very different from an assertion. The former implies
a restriction (e.g. "assuming that... then"), while the later is
simply a statement of fact (or belief) (e.g. "a well regulated militia
is necessary.") What in the text of the Constitution makes you think
the first clause is an presupposition? The Amendment seems to be a
statement of fact about the need for militias, followed by a means
of assuring the existance of such militias.

> We simply disagree on
>what the relevance is, my position being that it allows the government to 
>assign a "collective defense" interpretation to the RKBA.

Your position, however, is supported only by your (debatable) claims
of "modern relevance", or (essentially) what you _want_ the Constitution
to mean. 

The Amendment clearly protects _something_ from federal infringement.
If (as you seem to argue) the federal government can freely re-define
the "militia", and possible weaken it thereby, what protection does
the Amendment offer?

>Especially in modern
>times, when warfare bears little relationship to the experiences of the 18th
>century mind.  We simply no longer arm militias through private arms, and the
>skills needed to establish a military defense are far more specialized.

How do you explain the success of the French resistance, Polish Home 
Army and Yugoslav partisans during the Second World War, the Viet Mihn
and Viet Cong in the 1950s and 1960s, the Afgan mujahidin (sp?) of the
1980s or the Slovinian, Croate and Bosnian militias of this past year?
Many groups, lacking these special skills have been _very_ effective
in modern times.

>>Essentially one: Congress and the states are responsible for training it,
>>but they have no power to eliminate it.

>I think you mean "disarm it," since the "unorganized militia" would presumably
>still exist, by your lights, even if it was deprived of arms.

That's perfectly reasonable: However, my meaning isn't altered. Congress
has _only_ the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining,
the Militia..." and for calling it up in times of national crisis. The
Second Amendment specifically permits the militia (e.g. the people) to
arm themselves.
  
>Some people in
>this newsgroup even seem to believe that knives would be more dangerous weapons
>in a fight than guns. 

"In a fight" is a fairly broad catagory: If the enemy is more than a
few meters away (typical of military situations, but rare in cases of
personal self-defence), a knife is useless.

>So your view is that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd
>is not the federal army, the reserves, or the National Guard.  

The Second Amendment protects _something_ from infringement by
the federal government. The federal army, the army reserves and the
National Guard are all directly under the control of the federal
government and depend on federal funds for their existance. Clearly
none of these are protected from federal infringement. Therefore, none
of them can be relevant to the Second Amendment.

>Yet, I can't quite
>explain it, but I have this nagging feeling that you will be happy to use both
>Article I and the 2nd to rationalize what the various levels of governments do
>with those forces, too.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I have a feeling you are quite incorrect.
(I disapprove of many, if not most of the uses to which these forces
are put, so I have little interest in rationalizing any of them...)

>The logic of the whole thing escapes me, but I am
>beginning to lose interest in pursuing it.  The "militia" is anything you want
>it to be, but the "RKBA" has a single, rigid, obvious meaning. 

Not at all: The "militia" has one, specific, meaning: An armed population
able to fight in their own defence. The militia, or any part of it,
may be funded, armed, trained, organized, etc... by Congress, under
their Article One powers, but the existance of the militia is assured
by the Second Amendment guarantee of the people's access to arms.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns