From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:56:48 GMT

In article <84097@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>our present system of government has been based on a lot of questionable interpre-
>tations and reinterpretations of law.

This could be used as an argument against such interpertations as
for them: Most people aren't happy with the current structure of
the government.

>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.

The Court giving and taking away rights is a very good argument _against_
this sort of loose interpertation and judicial activism.

A much stronger and more perminent ruling on abortion could have
been made by applying the original intent of the Ninth Amendemnt
(e.g. the government has no bussiness regulating anything outside
thier granted powers.)

>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.

That depends entirely on what you mean by "better." Such a system would
be less efficient and would make life harder on the government. But in
my opinion, the _only_ criteria for the quality of a government is the
consent of the governed. If the Court is free to alter the nature of
the government based on their onw, subjective views, there is no
way to maintain a government by consent.

(Also, I don't think "original intent" means giving every remark of
the framers the wieght of constitutional law. It is just a tool, to
better understand the meaning of parts of the Constitution, just as 
a dictionary might help. It is the bare text, and only that text, that
should have the final word.)

>>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.

If you feel a well trained militia is necessary, then you should support
the repeal of these laws. If you don't think training is so vital, then
the laws aren't an issue and the current, unregulated militia can continue
in its current state of self-training on an individual level.

In fact, what you want to do is impose restrictions on the existance of
the militia, towards to goal of completely eliminating it (presumably
because you dislike the concept.) The entire propose of the Second
Amendment is to prevent such efforts and thereby assure the existance
of the militia.

By the way, "vigilantism" applies only to punishing a suspected criminal,
_after_ the crime is over, without bothering with the legal process. How
do militias, on a small scale, smack of this?

>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.

You really should read a little history before making such remarks:
Cornwallis' invasion of North Carolina and Virginia was stopped by
irregular militias at Kings Mountian (by eliminating Ferguson's command
and thereby flanking and threatening the main British army.) while the
Continental army was helpless and disorganized after disasterous defeat
by the British. Also, militias were decisive (and regulars either absent
or ineffective) for most of the war in the south, and at such vital battles 
as Ticonderoga and the siege of Boston.

>The local police department consists of professionals, not amateurs
>who can be called to duty on a moment's notice.

You could also benifit from looking at the record of the police:
Statistically, at least, "amatures" handle firearms in both a safer
and a more responsible fashion.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns