From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:34:20 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 71233@hydra.gatech.EDU, gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>}In article <84952@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>}True, the courts have found that the 1st doesn't allow you to yell "Fire" in a
>}crowded auditorium.  But the 2nd amendment seems very specific -- the right
>}of the people to keep and bear arms -- about who gets to keep the arms.
>
>No, no, no. Look the 1st doesn't even enter into in any such court case.
>You would be on trial for unlawful injury to others assuming anyone was
>injured. The 1st amendment in fact does allow you to say anything you
>damn well please, anywhere you please. It is up to legal code separate
>from that to deal with accusations of slander, libel, and similar 
>"damage to others" categories.

In this particular post, you deleted the correct attribution, leaving the 
mistaken impression that you were addressing me here.  Anyway, you totally
miss the point.  We all agree that the "crowded auditorium" example is not
relevant to the interpretation of the First.  The reason we do this is that
we all agree to interpret the wording of the First in a certain way.  Why
do people keep confusing the 1st with this issue?  Because the language of
the 1st, taken out of interpretive context, seems to guarantee a right to
say whatever you want, even if it is false and causes harm to others.
Your remarks are pulling us away from the original subject, which had to do
with *how* you interpret Constitutional language, not *what* its interpretation
is.

>...
>ever fielded. The 2nd played a role in that the Southern boys knew which
>end of a rifle was the dangerous end. The fact that Northerners often neglected
>their duty to be familiar with rifles as members of the unorganized
>militia is unfortunate. I am not trying to make it look like the Civil War
>was won by the South, but historians agree that the South had the better men.

First of all, historians don't agree on that.  Historians tend to agree, as you
pointed out in the part I deleted, that the North had some very incompetent
military leadership.  It is interesting that you and another respondant have
tried to argue that the 2nd Amendment had something to do with an alleged
superior knowledge of firearms in the South.  Of course, the 2nd applied to
Northerners as well, so you make up the assertion that they "neglected duty to
be familiar with rifles as members of the unorganized militia."  Streeeeeeeetch.
:-)

>It was quite common for a wealthier resident to form a unit and equip it
>himself. Such a man was given the title of Colonel for raising X number of
>men. This was common practice in England, and also for most of American
>history as well. Why do you think so many Southern gentleman were
>referred to as Colonel?

A common practice in England?  Say, wasn't that the country that oppressed the
Colonists by trying to disarm them, thus giving rise to the 2nd Amendment?  
How did they manage this without an RKBA?   ;-) 

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

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