Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 May 1999 10:53:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
756 times
|
| |
|
|
Sorry for the absence--it's been a long week.
> > So the "militia" wasn't really to protect the citizenry
> > from a potentially corrupt government--although that
> > interpretation has evolved, and I think it's a valid one--
> > but rather to defend the nation from outside forces in
> > the absence of any standing army. "Free" state meant
> > free from *outside* domination. The idea of inside
> > domination was rather silly--if the Framers were so
> > very worried about preventing police states and
> > oppressive central governments, why on Earth did
> > they extol the virtues of France and accept its aid
> > when Louis XVI was about as absolutist a monarch
> > and France about as strongly centralized a police
> > state as could ever exist? The answer is that they
> > trusted in reason and responsible government--not
> > the prospect of needing to take up arms against it.
>
> Your entirely ignoring the reason for the Declaration of Independance... The
> reason the United States has its own government totally independant of
> England is precisely that the founders of our nation saw that the government
> of England was oppressive and corrupt. We accepted aid from France because
> we needed aid, and the French had a few bones to pick with England.
I'm not talking about accepting French aid--which was instrumental to our
success--but in exalting the
French and the aristocracy of that country. There was
a ton of Francophilia going on in the halls of power--
"Jefferson in Paris?" Franklin and Paine as liaisons?
It wasn't just accepting them as the deus ex machina,
but extolling them for culture and achievement. That said, I agree that the
Colonists found the system in England was not representative of their
interests or wishes. However, what that has to do
with the Bill of Rights is less clear--the Bill of Rights
is based in idea on the 1689 Bill of Rights that
Parliament tried to foist onto William III. It became
a device for building popular support and legitimacy,
and I'm convinced the nebulousness in the Bill of
Rights isn't foresight by the founding fathers so
much as an effort to mollify as many people as
possible, in a country that at that time (under the
Articles of Confederation) was sorely divided,
with foreign powers (including France!) playing
one state off against another in a game of economic
dominance. The Bill of Rights is actually less a
document of individual rights and more a document
of states' rights, since the whole package needed
to be sold to the sovereign States as a whole.
The well-regulated (key term!) militia were on a
state and local basis, not people crouching in
their basements.
There were 11 years between the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitutional Convention
(and later the drafting of the Bill of Rights). The
two, while part of the same arc, weren't necessarily
created by the same conditions.
> Note the pre-amble of the Bill of Rights: "THE Conventions of a number of
> the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed
> a desire, in order to prevent minsconstruction or abuse of its powers, that
> further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as
> extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best
> ensure the benificent ends of its institution:"
Remember that noun, States--these are component *governments*, not
altruistic collectives. This just
reinforces what I've outlined above. It's about state
versus federal, not individuals versus government.
> The founding fathers were quite concerned about the government getting out
> of control.
The conventions of the states. Not all of the "founding fathers" were
concerned--they did
make overtures of a crown or consulship. The
collective term "founding fathers" is troublesome--
they weren't all of one mind on this thing. The
Articles, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
bear all the marks of a compromise document,
including the big grey areas (and this is where I
do think someone had a real burst of foresight--
by inserting the judiciary as arbiter, it was made
certain that the greys would be interpreted in
light of whatever social norms existed).
> > As to the freak-out point of weapons of mass
> > destruction ...
> While I would prefer that weapons of mass destruction be excluded from the
> 2nd amendment guarantee, I can see two reasoning that they should be
> included:
>
> 1. The 9th and 10th amendments which basically say that just because the
> Constitution doesn't mention something, doesn't mean its not covered, in
> fact, anything not explicitly given to the government to control is reserved
> for the people or the states.
The "or" seems important here. And this is why we have lawyers,
methinks--there's a big grey area, and
it's almost a platitude. How we're lucky is that the
system was engineered with a balance of powers
that works against absolutism. IX and X need to be
read in relation to the balance of the documentation.
I'll maintain that mass-killing weapons fall to "states"
rather than "individuals."
> 2. The British march on Concord, April 19, 1775 was to confiscate guns AND
> cannon from the people. As I have mentioned before, I believe that the march
> on Concord is one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment.
The Minutemen weren't total greens--they were militia. The cannon were
known to be
at Concord--why? Because that's where
they were supposed to be. These weren't
privately-owned cannon, they were part of
the artillery park for the militia. Even if some
who are arguing for the right to own napalm
or VX gas or whatever are entirely altruistic,
even if most are, all you need is *one* nut.
It's plausible to sacrifice 15-20 people to
the occasional nut--you'll have to, with or
without guns--but 1,000?
Weapons of mass destruction should not
be in the hands of individuals; most govern-
ments are not so stupid that they'll use them
on their own population. Especially if that
population has access to weapons of its
own, and the mobility to bring the fight
home to them. I can agree that people
who have passed some *major* checks
should be allowed to possess automatic
and even anti-armor/anti-air weaponry,
but I just can't agree on the mass-kill
category.
And before someone brings up the Kurdish
scenario, remember that Iraq is not, and
has never been, "free" and inclusive, but is
effectively a colonial government. The
Kurds have nowhere near the concentration
of weapons the US public does, nor the
numbers or mobility. I still maintain that
infantry-class weapons are all the Second
Amendment means for individuals to possess.
All it says is "the right to keep and bear arms"
shall not be infringed; not that it won't be a
regulated process, nor that arms = all weapons.
Constituted militias are another matter, as they
are for defence of the nation from outside--and
for the defence of the state from all threats.
> > I'll dig up citations if anyone wants them--but
> > a few good studies exist of how colonists tried
> > to assert Britishness only to be rebuffed by
> > King and Parliament both. They were subjects,
> > not citizens.
>
> Again, your ignoring the whole reason for the Revolution. It may be true
> that in the eyes of the King, the colonists were subjects and not citizens,
> and thus not entitled to representation etc. etc. etc. But the fact is that
> the colonists revolted because they felt that they did have the rights of
> citizenship and therefore of representation, etc.
Hm, I was trying to get at precisely that part of the reason--not that it
was simply a tax revolt.
The colonists felt themselves to be "Britons" and
thus entitled to the same rights as those in any
part of Great Britain; when that was not forth-
coming in 1689, people grumbled. When it
was not forthcoming in 1763, they grumbled
more loudly. When the opposite begain to
happen in the early 1770s, fighting broke out.
I didn't intend it an apologium for George and
Company!
Then again, that was the reason that the average
person supported the Revolution--if that were
the only reason, why didn't Canada join us?
The difference is that we had a home-grown
landed "aristocrat" class, where they didn't--
we were more prosperous. The same people
who dominated loyal colonial assemblies in the
1760s and 1770s dominated the early US
government. For them, it was more freedom
of trade and capital accumulation than any
idea of representation. Beard's venerable
(1912!) study, _An Economic Interpretation
of the US Constitution_ (I believe) was basically
on the mark.
LFB.
(PS: The story about why Quebec didn't join
us is a little more interesting--they'd only been
part of Canada for about 15 years, you'd think
they'd try to break free as well. It seems their
lot was with the British precisely because of
one thing that helped antagonize the future US--
the granting of the entire Ohio Valley to Quebec
alone in 1763. The British bought 'em off! Too
bad the Valley reverted to the US with the
peace agreement...too late for Quebec to object!)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| Mr L F Braun wrote in message <373D07C9.3E786497@p...su.edu>... (...) wrong.) (...) Your entirely ignoring the reason for the Declaration of Independance... The reason the United States has its own government totally independant of England is (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
