From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:55:28 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

Frank Crary (FC) writes:

FC> In your opinion, perhaps. But given the federal RICO seizures and
FC> other abuses associated with the "war on drugs", as well as the
FC> irresponsible behavior of the Congress (which in some ways acts as if
FC> it were a ruling class, not public servants), I would have to call
FC> government repression and tyranny a very real and major concern...

The only legal and proper way to fight such alleged abuses of power is through
our democratic political process.  Our form of government has tended to work
very well that way.  If you think to impress most Americans that private gun
ownership might someday be needed to enforce political solutions, then you are
barking up the wrong tree.  That is, frankly, a seditious argument.  I trust
our system to effect democratic change far more than I do a self-appointed
collection of gun-toting citizens, no matter how well-intentioned they think
they are.

FC> By the way, you haven't said yet what you think the Amendment protects.
FC> Are you claiming that, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms",
FC> provides _no_ protection what so ever of _anything_?

I have said over and over again that it protects the right of citizens to
defend themselves from foreign attack through an armed militia.  I have
speculated that an attempt by the federal government to disarm the National
Guard might be ruled unconstitutional under the 2nd.  I hope that you see and
remember it this time.

>I don't think "an armed citizenry" is synonymous with "milita" any more than
>an armed mob of vigilantes is a "militia." 

FC> Every one of the framers to mention the subject in speaches or writing
FC> though the "militia" was an armed citizenry. Many even directly stated
FC> such definitions. I don't think your personal definitions are
FC> relevant.

We don't even have records of what every one of the framers thought.  My guess
is that "armed citizenry" meant something like "a body made
up of armed citizens" as opposed to, say, professional soldiers.  There is a
phenomenon in language known as "metonymy"--a figure of speech that comes to
replace an associated expression.  For example, we often say "White House"
when we mean "President".  You can't prove anything by taking words so
literally.  Yet many of your arguments seem to turn on incredibly specific
interpretations of phraseology.  Neither history nor the law is an exact science.

>Presuppositions are propositions that must be true in order for the sentence
>containing them to be coherent in context.  For example, the statement "It
>being Tuesday, I must visit the doctor" presupposes that it is Tuesday.  If it
>is not, then I lose my excuse for visiting the doctor. 

FC> I'm quite familiar with English grammer. I was _not_ asking what a
FC> presupposition implies. I was asking what evidence you have, that the
FC> initial clause of the Second Amendment is a presupposition. The language
FC> seems (to me) to be a statement of fact, not a presupposition.

Ok, let me explain again.  The amendment *asserts* the RKBA.  It presupposes
that the RKBA is necessary to maintain a well-regulated militia.  Here is the
definition of the "Second Amendment" from the 2nd edition of the Random House
Unabridged Dictionary of the English language:  "an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the
right to keep and bear arms as necessary to maintain a state militia."  Oops!
Where did they get the idea that it was a "state" militia?  

Alan Watt (AW) writes:

AW> long dead who therefore can't answer the question decisively.  But consider,
AW> in 1791, just two years after the new Federal government came into being,
AW> there was an armed rebellion.  A bunch of corn farmers irate over a new
AW> liquer tax took up arms...

I have frequently raised the point that the Whiskey Rebellion was very much on
the minds of leaders in the early days of the federal republic.  It is
probably one of the reasons why state militias came to be so tightly
controlled by the feds, despite the wishes of the Antifederalists.  It must have
given many a lawmaker second thoughts about the advantages of having an "armed
citizenry" that was not subject to military discipline.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns