From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:13:33 GMT

In article <84193@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>Andy Freeman (AF) writes:
>
>AF> The "who trains the unorganized militia?" question isn't all that
>AF> interesting to me.  However, I will note that the answer doesn't have
>AF> the properties Wojcik wants...[goes on to assert that gun ownership isn't
>AF> restricted to the "unorganized militia"]
>
>First of all, you are begging the question by asserting that gun ownership
>isn't restricted to the "unorganized militia."  Secondly, that wasn't
>precisely the property I was interested in.  I was more interested in making
>sense out of the various apparent equivocations on the word "militia" in this
>newsgroup.  Most of my comments have centered around the common theme of what
>it is we mean by "well-regulated militia."
>
>>BTW, as long as I've got you on the line, did you ever track down that passage
>>showing that the "well-regulated" phrase in the language of the 2nd meant
>>"familiar with," not the more common sense of "well-run"?
>
>AF> As I've told Wojcik more than once, I didn't come up with any passage
>AF> like that, so I wonder why he asks me for it.  Why doesn't he ask
>AF> someone who has referred to it instead?  I'm not the default defender/
>AF> source for everything that someone has posted.
>
>That's really odd.  To my knowledge, you've only mentioned the passage once to
>me, although you may have mentioned it in threads that I haven't been
>participating in.  Someone had emailed me a remark that you had posted
>OED information on the so-called "trained" sense of "well-regulated."  You
>posted an angry note referring to a reference from a 1749 pamphlet.  I asked
>you to quote the passage, rather than just give a reference, and that was the
>last I heard from you on the subject.  I do recall you admonishing me in that
>post to send you email if I expected you to read what I posted.  Maybe you
>should apply your own rule to yourself when expecting me to see what you post.


From "The Political Works of Andrew Fletcher" London, 1732; Glasgow 1749


'A Discourse of government with relation to militias'
	Edinburgh 1698

	"Let us now consider whether we may not be able to defend ourselves
with well-regulated militias against any foreign force, though never so 
formidable: that these nations [England and Scotland] may be free from 
fears of invasion from abroad, as well as from the danger of slavery
at home."
	"After the barons had lost the military service of their vassals,
militias of some kind were established in most parts of Europe. But the
prince having everywhere the power of naming and preferring the officers
of these militias, they could be no balance in government as the former
were. And he that will consider what has been said in this discourse,
will easily perceive that the essential quality requisite to such a
militia, as might fully answer the ends of the former, must be, that
the officers should be named and preferred by the people that set them 
out. So that if the princes look upon the present militias as not 
capable of defending a nation against foreign armies, the people have little
reason to entrust them with the defense of their liberties."
	"And though upon the dissolution of that ancient militia under
the barons, which made these nations so great and glorious, by setting
up militias generally through Europe, the sword came not into the hands
of the commons, which was the only thing that could have continued the
former balance of government, but was everywhere put into the hands of
the king: nevertheless ambitious princes, who aimed at absolute power,
thinking they could never use it effectually to that end, unless it were
wielded by mercenaries, and men who had no other interest in the commonwealth
than their pay, have still endeavored by all means to discredit militias,
and render them burdensome to the people, by never suffering them to be
upon any right, or so much as tolerable foot, and to persuade all the
necessity of standing forces. And indeed they have succeeded too well in
this design: for the greatest part of the world has been fooled into
an opinion that a militia cannot be made serviceable."
(......)
	"A good militia is of such importance to a nation, that it is
the chief part of the constitution of any free government. For though 
as to other things, the constitution be never so slight, a good militia
will always preserve the public liberty." 
(......)
	"That the whole free people of any nation ought to be exercised 
to arms, not only the example of our ancestors, as appears by the acts
of parliament made in both kingdoms to that purpose, and that of the
wisest governments among the ancients; but the advantages of choosing
out of great numbers, seems clearly to demonstrate. (...) And I cannot
see why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they
are the only true badges of liberty; and ought never, but in times of
utmost necessity, be put into the hands of mercenaries or slaves:
neither can I understand why any man that has arms should not be taught
the use of them."




-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 |"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns