From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:52:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

}In article <84952@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
[stuff deleted]
}|> 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.
}|> 

}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.

}The 1st amendment never gets as specific, especially WRT shouting "Fire".
}I think a more accurate analogy might be that shouting "Fire" in a crowded
}theatre is similar to not being allowed to carry a firearm in a Federal building.

The 1st is a statement of intent, not a law specifying what is illegal.
All the legal code I've seen deals with what happens afterward, not
with the act itself. Similarly, it seems wrong to me that NYC for instance
can say I am not to be trusted with any nasty, pointy weapons. Unless
the justice system can prove wrongdoing, or some clear danger they should
not be in the business of regulating behaviour. The proper role of gov't
should be in dealing with screw-ups after the fact, not controlling
people beforehand.

}[deleted]
}|> 
}|>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?

Responding to Rich: 
Which "federal army"? According to one point of view, the CSA seceded and
formed it's own armies. The Union army was not the "legitimate" and
real army. I would point out that Southerners were generally better shots
and more effective soldiers than their Northern counterparts. The fact that
the South lost rests more on the North's industrial capacity than anything
else. Certainly the Northern generals were some of the most incompetent
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.

Sadly, most grade-schools these days don't do a very good
job with this war. The North, having won, is usually portrayed simplistically
as the good guys with no mention made of how close the war came to going
the other way on several occasions. I personally think it was good
that the North won, but the South carried itself very well indeed using
citizen-soldiers often using their own weapons. The North with it's supposedly
verfy effective trained soldiers won only at terrible cost. Casualties
were very high on *both* sides. Were the allegedly more professional
Union army so much more effective than the Reb's, this should have been
reflected by very lopsided casualty figures, which is not the case. Many texts
also completely ignore the fact of many draft riots that erupted in the
North during the Civil War. There were one or two incredibly bloody ones
in New York where federal troops had to be called in to kill a lot of
their own people in order to put it down.

Read a little more history before popping out with the conclusion that
the unorganized Southern army was doomed to failure. They were doomed
to failure by their lower industrial capacity, not their men or organization.

}I don't recall it being quite so clear; Wasn't the vast majority of the Southern
}troops raised from the "unorganized militia"?  Given that much of the initial
}battles were won by the South, it would seem that their quickly assembled army
}may well have been more effective than the Unions' standing army.  It would also
}seem logical that the Southerner's familiarity with the current state of the art
}WRT militia weapons had something to do with the ability to effectively use them.

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?

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns