From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:40:44 GMT


In article <84260@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

|> 
|> 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.  The absolutive clause in
|> the 2nd establishes the context for the RKBA--the necessity of arming a militia.

But note it says "the right *of the people* to keep and bear arms ...".
Also note, even given your grammatical analysis above, the presuppositive
clase does not establish the "necessity of arming" a millitia, but the
necessity of *having* one; specifically one not under the control of the
central government (i.e., a "standing army" or a "select militia").

There's a point which seems to have been missed by everyone in this debate.
To some extent, we're attribiting thoughts and intentions to people
long dead who therefore can't answer the question decisively.  But consider,
in 1791, just two years after the new Federal government came into being,
there was an armed rebellion.  A bunch of corn farmers irate over a new
liquer tax took up arms (yes, that means they were carrying guns in their
hands) and marched against the new government.  President Washington called
out federal troops, commanded by Alexander Hamilton, and crushed the rebellion.
In other words, federal troops fired upon a semi-organized body of citizens
carrying their own arms in rebellion against federal authority.

Now since *all* the people who signed that document, and virtually all the
people of the several states who ratified it, were still around when this
took place, don't you think they would have clarified the document if they
thought it needed it?  "Oh, golleeee, I guess you could read that to say
ordinary folks can have guns.  Mebee we ought to add a few words here or
there"????  Don't you think you could find something more substantive
in support of this position than re-hashing Thomas Jefferson's grammar
lessons?  Don't you think you could at least find some debate on the
topic?  If you really want to answer the question "what did the people
who wrote and approved the 2nd amendment mean by it", this is the
place to look, because this is the event which would put the conflicting
interpretation in direct competition.

Further, when the Senate debate on the ratification of the
14th amendment took place, an extraordinary part of it was concerned with
the effect of adopting the 14th would have on extending the protection
of the 2nd to cover state laws.  Senator after senator rose to complain
that "militias and posses are disarming freed negros, with help from
the states".  Far from being concerned that the 2nd amendment could
be "confused" to mean ordinary people could keep firearms; they want
to make sure *it guaranteed it*!!

It would be interesting to see at what point in time, the "it only means
states can organize a national guard" interpretation first surfaced.  My
guess is anytime prior to the late 30's or early 40's such a claim would have
been laughed at.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns