From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:03:04 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <84686@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>Frank Crary (FC) writes:
>
>FC> In your opinion, perhaps. But given the federal RICO seizures and
>FC> other abuses associated with the "war on drugs", as well as the
>FC> irresponsible behavior of the Congress (which in some ways acts as if
>FC> it were a ruling class, not public servants), I would have to call
>FC> government repression and tyranny a very real and major concern...
>
>The only legal and proper way to fight such alleged abuses of power is 
>through our democratic political process.  Our form of government has 
>tended to work very well that way. 

     Do you then believe that there is no abuse of power that our legal
democratic process can't deal with?

>If you think to impress most Americans 
>that private gun ownership might someday be needed to enforce political 
>solutions, then you are barking up the wrong tree.  That is, frankly, a 
>seditious argument.  

     Sedition is the incitement of resistance against lawful authority.
When the government violates the Constitution, it has violated the document
which *grants* it that lawful authority.
     If you want to argue practicality, that's another argument.  But then
again, "It can't happen to me," and "It's can't happen here," are common
human attitudes.

>I trust our system to effect democratic change far 
>more than I do a self-appointed collection of gun-toting citizens, no 
>matter how well-intentioned they think they are.

     I have many doubts about our system to effect democratic change.  
Foremost among them is that if we allow your "modern understanding" to 
dictate how and where our rights are "understood" in the "modern context,"
then there is no longer any way to protect the rights of the minority, 
because "modern understanding" is invariably the attitude of the majority,
the very group minority rights must be protected from.

     And I'm not sure about the comment "how well-intentioned they think
they are."  Are you suggesting they aren't well intentioned and just don't
know it?

>FC> By the way, you haven't said yet what you think the Amendment protects.
>FC> Are you claiming that, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms",
>FC> provides _no_ protection what so ever of _anything_?
>
>I have said over and over again that it protects the right of citizens to
>defend themselves from foreign attack through an armed militia.  

     But only when and where the government chooses to arm them.  I find the
idea of a right which may be applied at the government's whim to be, at
least, a sick caricature of a right.

>I have
>speculated that an attempt by the federal government to disarm the National
>Guard might be ruled unconstitutional under the 2nd.  I hope that you see and
>remember it this time.

     The federal government disarming an extension of its own power?
Isn't that like claiming that it would be unconstitutionial for the Congress 
to restrict its power to spend money?  (Read Gramm-Rudman)  Has the 
government ever *really* done this?  Have they ever *really* been in any 
danger or disarming itself?
     It seems a silly thing to have such a protection for.

>>I don't think "an armed citizenry" is synonymous with "milita" any more than
>>an armed mob of vigilantes is a "militia." 
>
>FC> Every one of the framers to mention the subject in speaches or writing
>FC> though the "militia" was an armed citizenry. Many even directly stated
>FC> such definitions. I don't think your personal definitions are
>FC> relevant.
>
>We don't even have records of what every one of the framers thought.  
>My guess is that "armed citizenry" meant something like "a body made
>up of armed citizens" as opposed to, say, professional soldiers.  

     That does seem to follow.

>There is a
>phenomenon in language known as "metonymy"--a figure of speech that comes to
>replace an associated expression.  For example, we often say "White House"
>when we mean "President".  You can't prove anything by taking words so
>literally.  Yet many of your arguments seem to turn on incredibly specific
>interpretations of phraseology.  Neither history nor the law is an exact 
>science.

     So, armed citizenry really doesn't mean armed citizenry?  It means armed
professional soldiers?

>>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. 
>
>FC> I'm quite familiar with English grammer. I was _not_ asking what a
>FC> presupposition implies. I was asking what evidence you have, that the
>FC> initial clause of the Second Amendment is a presupposition. The language
>FC> seems (to me) to be a statement of fact, not a presupposition.
>
>Ok, let me explain again.  The amendment *asserts* the RKBA.  It presupposes
>that the RKBA is necessary to maintain a well-regulated militia.  

     But does not state that the militia is necessary to RKBA.

>Here is the
>definition of the "Second Amendment" from the 2nd edition of the Random 
>House Unabridged Dictionary of the English language:  "an amendment to the 
>U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, 
>guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms as necessary to maintain a 
>state militia."  Oops! Where did they get the idea that it was a "state" 
>militia?  

    Good question.  Maybe they asked Chief Justice Burger.

    The job of a dictionary is to provide the accepted meaning of words, not
provide political commentary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,ou.politics