From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:43:55 GMT

In article <84193@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>I was more interested in making
>sense out of the various apparent equivocations on the word "militia" in this
>newsgroup.  Most of my comments have centered around the common theme of what
>it is we mean by "well-regulated militia."

As I have said before, "militia" has only one meaning in the Constitution:
A body of armed citizens able to act in their own defence. Article One
gives Congress the power to arm, train, organize, etc... the militia or
any part of it they see fit. The Second Amendment asserts that the militia
is necessary, and protects its _existance_ by assuring that the people
can arm themselves.

>AF> The Constitution isn't written in stone.  We can change it whenever we
>AF> want.  Therefore, it is unreasonable to "amend" it by less formal
>AF> means, however convenient that might be.  There's nothing wrong with a
>AF> "what they wrote simply isn't appropriate to a modern society"
>AF> argument, but the proper way to implement such a decision is through
>AF> the amendment process.

>The amendment process was intentionally designed to be difficult.  If you could
>change it at the drop of a hat, it wouldn't be worth much.  I would personally
>support a repeal of the 2nd if it were interpreted according to what you
>insist was the original intent of the framers.  But the courts appear not to
>interpret it that way, and most of the public is satisfied with the status quo
>in that regard.  There is just no need to support an amendment...

Which is to say, the Courts have (unconstitutionally) assumed the power
to modify the Constitution, and therefore there is no need for an
amendment process. In theory, at least, the government exists only by
consent of the people and can be modified only with the consent of
an overwelming majority of the people. By your logic, the Court could
(in effect) amend the Constitution, over the _objections_ of a majority
of the people.

>...to repeal an
>interpretation that has no real bearing on modern gun control laws.  The real
>intent of the backers of the amendment--to prevent federal control of the
>state militias--is now moot.

This interpertation is not supported by historical fact: From 1792 onwards,
the federal government exercised control over the militia. Since the 
Congress in 1792 was (for the most part) composed of the same people as
in 1789, one would think they understood their own intentions. Since
they enacted federal controls over the militia, they obviously didn't 
intend the Second Amendment to do this. The real intent of the Second
Amendment was to assure the existance of the militia, even if the federal
government became hostile the concept.

By the way, do you think the text of the Amendment (specifically, the
clause, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.") protects _something_ from infringement? If so, _what_? Keep
in mind that this thing could not be state-organized militias, since
the Congress "infringed" on this within a year of the ratification of the
Second Amendment.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns