From: rwojcik@bcsaic.boeing.com (Rick Wojcik)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:53:07 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

Folks,

The volume of responses to my posts has gotten well beyond what I can handle,
but I'll try to respond to some of the more substantive comments.  I enjoy the
argument when it gets thought-provoking, not so much when it gets personal and
abusive.  I'll try to keep my own replies civil.

Andy Freeman (AF):

AF> Andy Freeman doesn't cite OED.  He does cite, among other sources,
AF> Fletcher's Political Works, pub'd in 1749, which defines "well
AF> regulated militia" as an armed people NOT under the control of govt.

Sorry that I missed your excerpt of this one, Andy.  You can send it by email
or post it.  Otherwise, I can't respond to it.

AF> Other people have pointed out that Wojcik's assumption that
AF> "regulated" implies govt controlled is wrong.  It isn't necessarily
AF> true now and wasn't true then.  (My car has a regulator, but it has
AF> nothing to do with govt, and "regulation" is the process of adjusting
AF> a gun for accuracy; the latter is a rare meaning now, but very common
AF> in the 1700s.)  Freeman also correctly summarizes Gerry's objection,
AF> WHICH resulted in a change in the 2nd amendment.  (So much for
AF> Wojcik's characterization of Gerry's position, although he's finally
AF> acknowledging that it dooms his interpretation.)

Your linguistic argument is quite cheesy.  We aren't concerned with all the
homonyms of "regulate", etc., but with the implication of government control.
I don't argue that the "well-trained" or "familiar-with" interpretation is
wrong, only that there is no evidence that this (now obsolete) sense of the
word was the one that everyone had in mind.  In fact, the framers and
ratifiers talked about "well-regulated banks," too, but that doesn't imply
that they meant "banks familiar with money."

The Gerry issue is different.  I never "acknowledged" anything of the sort,
and I'm not completely certain of what your interpretation of the issue is.
Please explain some of the reasoning that sits behind your conclusions.

AF> Freeman has pointed out that Wojcik's "they didn't keep notes" argument
AF> is bogus.  There weren't deliberation notes for the constitutional
AF> convention, but the 2nd amendment didn't come out of the
AF> constitutional convention.  It's a silly argument even for the...

I was addressing the issue of how one interprets Constitutional law--whether
or not the doctrine of "original intent" was what the framers had in mind.  If
it had been, you would have expected the Constitutional Convention to keep
notes and publish them.  Instead, Madison kept his *unofficial* notes secret
until after his death.  Whatever principles applied to the interpretation of
the original Constitution also apply to its amended form.  Or do you disagree?

AF> Freeman doesn't read every article looking for "challenges".  If Wojcik
AF> wants me to see something, he can MAIL it to me.

Interesting.  Andy didn't mail this one to me.  Guess he didn't want me to see
it.  ;-)

AF> BTW - Even if we hadn't gone all over this many times before, I
AF> wouldn't be obligated to respond to Wojcik, and my failure to do so
AF> wouldn't mean anything.

Right back at ya, Andy.  Remember this statement, as you've complained before
that I didn't respond to arguments.  ;-)

AF> Speaking of challenges, I note that Wojcik still hasn't bothered to
AF> provide any evidence supporting his interpretation from the relevant
AF> period of time.  Even Hamilton, who LOST the argument over the
AF> distribution of power, disagrees with Wojcik.

I'm not clear on which argument you're talking about.  I cited quite a bit of
material from the OED on the "well-regulated" debate, and most of the
counter-citations had nothing to do with the "training" sense of 'regulate'.
In fact, they tended to support the "controlled" sense.

AF> Actually, the individual right RKBA folk don't necessarily fit into
AF> the original intent school.  It is clever for Wojcik to play on that
AF> confusion, but dishonest.

A good point, Andy.  Now, would you care to explain the reasoning behind the
conclusion?  Or do we just take your word for it?

Morris the Cat (MC):

MC> Take my word for it, it's "C"; Wojcik hasn't changed has argument
MC> style since we were arguing this stuff back in 1989... it is most
MC> amusing watching people argue with Wojcik and receiving the same
MC> "Your evidence isn't evidence, because I don't acknowledge your
MC> evidence as having any validity at all"... as one person commented
MC> here about their supervisor: "Talking to him is like talking to a
MC> black hole."

This reply is one of the abusive ones, which is distinct from Andy's in that
it lacks all substance.  Morris the Cat's views haven't changed since that
time either.  Does that make him a "black hole" cat?  Sorry.  Should have
resisted that one.  ;-)  I appreciate the responses from those of you who
respect me enough to put up with the frustration.  I seldom agree with you,
but this is a way of working out our feelings on a complex subject.  And how
many anti-gun netters respect you enough to even listen to your arguments?

Frank Crary (FC):

(I find Frank's writings among the most interesting, and most challenging.  I
 won't respond to his extensive legal citations, other than to fall back on my
 original position:  Legal language is not fixed in meaning, and there are
 plenty of cases where explicit interpretations have been reversed--especially
 in the case of Constitutional law.  We have yet to see a single gun control
 law overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 2nd.  They just don't
 seem interested in the case made by the pro-gun lobby.  I think that, on this
 point, at least, we all agree.)
 
FC> And, as I have said elsewhere, the Federalists specifically stated
FC> that the Bill of Rights did not alter the Constitution: It was mearly
FC> a written protection of rights which were already protected, de facto,
FC> by the unamended Constitution.

Yes, but not everyone was a Federalist, and some even argued that producing a
Bill of Rights would imply the opposite.  I don't think that they were far off
the mark.

FC> Further, the federal Militia Act and the Supreme Court ruling in Presser
FC> v. Illinois undermine your concept of independent, state-run militias,
FC> by imposing federal supremecy over organized militias. How can the
FC> federal government have such authority, if the Second Amendment were
FC> a grant state authority over the militia?

Very easily.  The Antifederalists clearly wanted to prevent this, but they
weren't able to get all the language they wanted into the 2nd.  Consequently,
it wasn't hard for the Court to rule this way.  Recall the attempts of
Antifederalists to kill a standing army in peacetime, Patrick Henry's lament
about depending on the feds to equip the militias, etc.

[On why no gun control laws have been overturned.]

FC> Specifically, they ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right
FC> of individual citizens to own firearms, but that this right (like all
FC> others) is subject to reasonable regulation. They simply haven't 
FC> heard any cases involving unreasonable regulations. The rulings,
FC> however, precident for such a decision. 

A good point.  I would think that the NYC and Washington DC laws qualify for
such a ruling, don't you?  What do you do if they never hear of any
"unreasonable" regulation?  Maybe they're thinking that the militias are being
"well-regulated" by these laws, eh?

>The fact remains that you belong
>to no real militia, and you haven't been asked to engage in any of the 
>training that you and others think "well-regulated" refers to.

AF> Under Title X recognizes the "unorganized militia", which includes
AF> all males between the ages of 17 and 45. So I do, in fact, belong
AF> to a militia officially recognized by federal law. 

A good point.  However, the Supremes *could* rule that the "unorganized
militia" does not constitute the one that the Federalists and Antifederalists
were squabbling over--i.e. the "well-regulated militia".  The "unorganized
militia" certainly doesn't undergo all that training you guys like to refer
to.  I'd like to see you all report on Saturday mornings for "musket
practice".  On the double, now.  Me?  For once, I'm happy to be over 45.  
;-) ;-)
-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!bcsaic!rwojcik 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns