From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:30:16 GMT

In article <84481@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
(Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> In article 29829@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
> (Frank Crary) writes:
> >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.

> but we disagree over the question of whether the government must allow
> those arms to be owned privately.

Obviously this is because you are unable to parse a simple sentence.

> I contend that state militias in 20th century America, such as they are,
> no longer rely on participants to bring their own arms in service of the
> country.

Contend what you want, the 2nd does not refer to STATE militias.  Show me
the word "State" in the 2nd Amendment.

> Whether or not the 18th century framers of the 2nd had this in mind
> is now moot.

Then clearly the whole document is now moot.  The minute you decide to modify
the meaning of the document, without changing the document, then the
Constitution is no longer the law of the land; It no longer has any meaning.

> The Court does not amend the Constitution, but it can amend the
> interpretation of the Constitution.

And we can remove them from their offices for such behavior.

> It has that power. You may like to think that the Constitution means
> something other than what the Court says it means, but your opinion does
> not have the force of law.  The Court's does.

   "You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
    constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and
    one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....
    The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         Thomas Jefferson, 1820.

   "As the courts are generally the last in making the decision
    [on laws], it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to
    execute a law, to stamp it with its final character.  This makes
    the Judiciary dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which
                                                             ^^^^^
    was never intended, and can never be proper."
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         James Madison, 1788.

> We just keep going over the same points, like a broken record.

And this is from the guy who keeps making the same statement over and over,
like a broken record.  Never mind the FACTS, Rick!...

> >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.
> 
> What can't be infringed is the collective right of the people to bear arms
> in an organized militia.

         "That  the  said  Constitution  shall  never  be  construed  to
         authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or
         the  rights of conscience;  or to prevent  the  people  of  The
         United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
         arms..." (Samuel Adams)

> Whether or not this was the original interpretation is now moot.

Then you declare the Constitution null and void?

> The spirit of the 2nd--the collective defense of the nation--is more than
> adequately met by our numerous military organizations.

	"Arms  in  the  hands  of citizens [may] be used at  individual
	 discretion...   in  private  self-defense..."  (John  Adams,  A
	 Defense of the  Constitutions of the Government of the UAS, 471
	 (1788))

> Whether or not Congress "infringed" this right by cementing federal
> control over state militias is a  matter of interpretation.

	"Are we  at  last  brought  to  such  humiliating  and debasing
	 degradation, that we  cannot  be  trusted  with  arms  for  our
	 defense?  Where is  the  difference  between having our arms in
	 possession and under our direction,  and  having them under the
	 management of Congress?  If our defense be the _real_ object of
	 having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more
	 propriety,  or  equal  safety  to  us, as in  our  own  hands?"
	 (Patrick Henry)

> I tend to side with the Federalists on this issue,
> and you prefer an Antifederalist interpretation.

Oh, you mean you side with people like Madison:

	"Besides  the  advantage  of being armed, which  the  Americans
	 possess  over  the people of almost every other  nation.    ...
	 Notwithstanding the  military  establishments  in  the  several
	 kingdoms of Europe,  which  are  carried  as  far as the public
	 resources will bear, the  governments  are  afraid to trust the
	 people  with  arms."

        "The right of the  people  to keep and bear...arms shall not be
         infringed.   A well regulated militia, composed of the body  of
         the  people,  trained  to  arms,  is  the best and most natural
         defense of  a  free  country..."  (James  Madison,  I Annals of
         Congress 434, June 8, 1789)

I'm glad you've changed your position!

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser