From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:31:07 GMT

Since Wojcik seems intent on depriving those on talk.politics.misc
from seeing replies to his "proof by assertion", I thought I'd 
forward some of the postings on talk.politics.guns to those folks.


In article <1992Sep2.171217.25782@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <81757@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>>Anyway, I'm not going to belabor these issues much longer, unless 
>>people want to (and I have the time).  So far, nobody has been able
>>to supply me with a shred of evidence in favor of the "well-regulated"
>>interpretation as "well-trained".
>
>The problem isn't with the supply, but with the acceptance procedure.
>Wojcik simply ignores evidence that doesn't support his interpretation.
>We'll come back to that in a bit.
>
>>Someone mentioned that Andy Freeman cited a quote from the OED, but
>>Andy did not care to respond to my linguistic challenge.
>
>Andy Freeman doesn't cite OED.  He does cite, among other sources,
>Fletcher's Political Works, pub'd in 1749, which defines "well
>regulated militia" as an armed people NOT under the control of govt.
>Other people have pointed out that Wojcik's assumption that
>"regulated" implies govt controlled is wrong.  It isn't necessarily
>true now and wasn't true then.  (My car has a regulator, but it has
>nothing to do with govt, and "regulation" is the process of adjusting
>a gun for accuracy; the latter is a rare meaning now, but very common
>in the 1700s.)  Freeman also correctly summarizes Gerry's objection,
>WHICH resulted in a change in the 2nd amendment.  (So much for
>Wojcik's characterization of Gerry's position, although he's finally
>acknowledging that it dooms his interpretation.)
>
>Freeman has pointed out that Wojcik's "they didn't keep notes" argument
>is bogus.  There weren't deliberation notes for the constitutional
>convention, but the 2nd amendment didn't come out of the
>constitutional convention.  It's a silly argument even for the
>constitution body as the relevant materials, the ratification
>arguments, are available.  However, it's a necessary argument for
>Wojcik because the relevant materials doom his "there's no evidence
>for that interpretation" claim.
>
>Freeman doesn't read every article looking for "challenges".  If Wojcik
>wants me to see something, he can MAIL it to me.
>
>BTW - Even if we hadn't gone all over this many times before, I
>wouldn't be obligated to respond to Wojcik, and my failure to do so
>wouldn't mean anything.
>
>Speaking of challenges, I note that Wojcik still hasn't bothered to
>provide any evidence supporting his interpretation from the relevant
>period of time.  Even Hamilton, who LOST the argument over the
>distribution of power, disagrees with Wojcik.
>
>BTW - "Original Intent" is the NAME of a school of interpretation with
>a number of stances, some of which actually aren't supported by the
>evidence.  That name was chosen for its rhetorical value, but not all
>uses of that phrase refer to positions held by that school.  Thus,
>Wojcik's "the original intent people have positions that have not
>basis in the historical evidence" evidence is often irrelevant as a
>rebuttal to arguments offered by people citing "original intent" as
>his evidence refers to positions of that school, not the arguments
>being offered.
>
>Malcom, Scarry and others have documented the historical framework for
>the distribution of power interpretation of the militia clause.  The
>mandated distribution of power can't exist without individual RKBA,
>but there can be individual RKBA without that distribution.  Wojcik
>argues against a strawman interpretation of the militia clause, and
>after claiming to knock it down, claims that therefore his
>interpretation is correct and therefore the second clause is
>meaningless.  Yawn.
>
>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc