From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:04:49 GMT

In article <83662@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 13593@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <83040@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>>>Where have you been?  Read some of the discussions that have been going
>>>on in this newsgroup.  Nobody denies that the 2nd was originally about the
>>>state militias, only whether or not the RKBA can be taken only to apply in 
>>>the context of militia duty.  
>>
>>"Nobody"?  Try again.  Lots of people have.  They've even provided
>>relevant evidence.
>
>We've probably been talking at cross purposes.  The history of the 2nd was
>directly linked to attempts to limit the power of the federal government,
>even to outlaw a federal standing army in peacetime.

Right.

>There is little question that the "militia" mentioned
>in Article I was the same "militia" mentioned in the 2nd.

On the contrary, there's considerable questions.  More importantly,
if Article I allows something that the 2nd forbids, the 2nd takes
precedence.

>>>First you say that the 2nd isn't about state militias.  Then you say that
>>>state governors are responsible for the militia training that the 2nd isn't
>>>about.
>>
>>Right.  They're responsible for the state militia training mentioned
>>in Article I.  When we're talking about state militias, it is useful
>>to refer to the appropriate section of the constitution; it isn't
>>the 2nd amendment.
>
>Andy, my original comments about the militia had to do with the so-called
>"unorganized militia," not the National Guard.

Note how Wojcik tries to slide in "state militia" = "unorganized
militia".  It isn't.  State militias are, by definition, organized,
and govt, militias.

The "who trains the unorganized militia?" question isn't all that
interesting to me.  However, I will note that the answer doesn't have
the properties Wojcik wants.  Said training isn't a condition on gun
ownership and the state doesn't get to use its "we only want 6'1" 180#
people who can bench 320#, and we only want 200 of them, in our
militia" crap when we're looking at whose gun ownership is protected
by the 2nd.  In the first case, that means that Wojcik gets to be out
there with the rest of us if he meets the govts defn, whether or not
he owns.  In the second, people who don't still have protected gun
ownership.

If Wojcik thinks that militia training is a useful thing, he can look
to his state govt for it.  Heck, he can ask the feds or the parks and
rec department in his city, or contract for it himself.  If he thinks
that everyone should have it, he can agitate for a mandate by most any
level of govt.  It still won't have the effect he wants wrt the 2nd
and gun ownership.

>BTW, as long as I've got you on the line, did you ever track down that passage
>showing that the "well-regulated" phrase in the language of the 2nd meant
>"familiar with," not the more common sense of "well-run"?

As I've told Wojcik more than once, I didn't come up with any passage
like that, so I wonder why he asks me for it.  Why doesn't he ask
someone who has referred to it instead?  I'm not the default defender/
source for everything that someone has posted.

>I also wouldn't mind some elaboration on your curious comment that
>defenders of the RKBA are not in the "original intent" camp.

I've explained it repeatedly and Wojcik has ignored it repeatedly.

"Original intent" is the name of a school of constitutional
interpretation.  It makes vague references to 1790s documents when
convenient but doesn't feel bound by them.  It is a name chosen
for rhetorical reasons.

The RKBA arguments that Wojcik wants to tie to that school don't work
that way.  They're not an attempt to justify a "the founding fathers
meant" argument as much as they are evidence showing what said wigged
gents said, what the words they used meant.  Those arguments actually
do have the supporting evidence that is lacking in some positions
taken by members of the "original intent" school.

Suppose word "trial" comes to mean "combat".  The RKBA-supporter style
argument would point out that that doesn't change the meaning of the
6th, the "original intent" folks would come up with God knows what,
and the "living document" folks would insist that the 6th merely
requires said combat to take place in public.

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

>I can understand where a libertarian like yourself

I'm not a libertarian or a Libertarian.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns