To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 1003
1002  |  1004
Subject: 
Re: New Web Page
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 21 May 1999 10:53:15 GMT
Viewed: 
895 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 (...) (26 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR