From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: So... Why have a standing army?
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:05:51 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

Frank Crary (FC) writes:

FC> One of the things the Second Amendment protects the militia _from_
FC> is the governemnt itself. (The writings of the framers, Federalist
FC> and anti-federalist, argue that repressive governments prefer
FC> standing, professional armies to citizen militias. The anti-federalists
FC> went on to argue that, should the United States' government become
FC> repressive it would try to weaken or destroy the militia; therefore
FC> a constitutional protection of the militia was needed.)

At the turn of the century, socialists were arguing that a conscription would
serve temper militarism and jingoism in the military.  This idealistic view
of "citizen armies" has seldom stopped nations from going to war or oppressing
their own people.  Moreover, some politicians--e.g. Washington--were
explicitly opposed to relying on militias for defense.  The Federalist papers
do not necessarily represent the full dimension of politics at the time.

FC> Clearly, saying that a right "shall not be infringed" means the government
FC> may not dictate how that right may be peacably exersized. If the 
FC> protection from the government is to be at all meaningfull, the government
FC> cannot control details, such as who provides the arms or how they are
FC> kept.

We disagree completely on this.  The government regulates everything that the
Amendments protect, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press.  The
courts have historically expanded those freedoms by using their power of
interpretation to invalidate and reverse laws that had been seen, in a
previous era, to be consistent with the Constitution.  The courts are always
erasing lines and redrawing them.  If you believe that your freedom of speech
is unregulated, then go shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium and explain it
to the judge.

FC> The militia (as distinct from the federal army, a distinction very
FC> clearly made by the Constitution) currently exists _only_ as the
FC> unorganized militia of all able-bodied citizens. So I'd have to say
FC> it is _extremely_ dependent on the participants bringing their own arms.

OK.  We've gotten nowhere on this point and might as well drop it.  The 2nd
does not say "A well-regulate unorganized militia, being..."  But that is the
interpretation that you would like to impose on it.  Fine.  We'll let the
courts decide.

FC> "Interpret" means "to make understandable" _not_ "to modify the meaning
FC> of." When the Court's "interpertation" goes so far as to alter the meaning
FC> of the Constition, they are in fact, amending it. The Court certainly
FC> has the authority to interpert the Constitution, but only within the
FC> ambiguity of the text's actual words...

Don't forget vagueness, which is different from ambiguity.  Semantic vagueness
refers to underspecified meaning, as e.g. when you ask how many mountains
exist in a mountain chain.  You can't answer the question without defining
somewhat arbitrary criteria as to what constitutes a mountain.  And sometimes
you end up producing criteria that don't distinguish them from molehills.  :-)
Anyway, we don't disagree on this.  We are disagreeing on how the Court goes
about assigning meaning to law.  You want to block certain interpretations on
the grounds of "original intent", and I want the courts to have more latitude.
In fact, I believe that so-called "Originalists" don't really eschew such
latitude in all cases, only when it suits their particular case.  It would be
pure insanity to apply "original intent" across the board to all laws.
Political and legal chaos.

FC> On those rare occasions where peacefull means fail, and violence or
FC> the threat of violence is resorted to, who should have control of
FC> such martial force? Consider, for example, many South American nations.
FC> In cases of governmental crisis, "whose side is the Army on?" often
FC> becomes the decisive issue. I would rather have violent force in the
FC> hands of the people: "Whose side will the people fight for?" is a
FC> far better question, in those (fortunately) rare circumstances.

OK, let's consider a real case:  the American Civil War.  Whose side was the
army on?  Although the army was nominally under federal control, many officers
and soldiers deserted to the rebel cause in the South.  By and large, however,
the federal army remained faithful to the civilian government of the Union.
The so-called "unorganized militia" made no difference to the South.  It held
out only by raising regular troops.  What role did the 2nd Amendment play
there in defending liberty and opposing tyranny?

FC> Again, you miss my point: You claim that the first clause is a
FC> presupposition and the second is an assertion based on that assumption.
FC> I, reading the same sentance, see a assertion followed by a related
FC> specific prohibition. What facts do you have to support your claim?

By today's writing practices, the comma usage is ungrammatical in the 2nd.
Technically, however, the first clause is an absolutive expression.  It has
something like the effect of a conditional, except that it presupposes the
truth of the clause.  Take my earlier example of the construction:  "It being
Tuesday, I must visit the doctor."  When uttered on any day except Tuesday,
you get presupposition failure.  You are not asserting that it is Tuesday, but
presupposing it.  Note that presupposition failure invalidates the assertion
in the main clause. 

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

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