On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Dean Forster wrote:
>
> Marvin, why are we still expending energy on the
> somantics of grammar and what we figure the framers
> were thinking at the time when almost all of the
> writings and speeches of the men themselves expressed
> their attitudes so clearly?
I'll confess I've haven't read every writing and every speech. I am aware
that a couple of the federalist papers argue that something like the 2nd
amendment is unnecessary, given the already existing constitutional
provisions made for the militia and armed forces. Antifederalists thought
it was necessary, and probably wanted something more stringent. Without
being able to read minds, I analyze the grammar to see where the
compromise lies. (Some stuff I wrote extensively about this in a past
thread may be in the Brin-L archives. I'm too lazy to go look it all up
just now.)
> That is precisely my point. As I expressed before,
> the body politic presently doesn't seem so much
> concerned with the issues as with translating whatever
> comes up as a problem for the week into legislation,
> and having a general desire to not be bothered with
> responsibility in their lives unless absolutely
> necessary.
Without addressing a specific issue, I can't make much sense out of that
particular point. Unless it's just a blanket declaration that there are
too many soft-headed [insert term for opposition here] trying to ruin the
country, or some such.
> When I see commercials trying to impress
> upon people that they need to keep track of their
> children, that's a big warning sign to me.
That's ugly, but if I saw commercials telling people that it's their
obligation to buy guns if they want to be protected from criminals and
each other, then such a commercial would say to me that "Government by,
of, and or the people has officially been declared a failure. You're on
your own. It turns out that might makes right after all."
> Starship troopers, anyone? Marvin, you're gonna get
> beat on worse than I have. =)
Not quite that severe--I'd allow everyone to vote, after all. But I've
often thought that some kind of mandatory public service (not
necessarily military) for young people wouldn't be such a bad idea. A
rite of passage into adulthood and citizenship, say, and a way of making
sure that essential public services have a ready supply of manpower. (I,
being the generally introverted misanthrope that I am, would of course
have complained endlessly about the injustice of such a requirement, but
still.)
> I found it, "The militia of the United States
> consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of
> age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
> (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/)
Ok...but until they start drafting and drilling, it seems to me that such
a militia doesn't really exist in any concrete sense. It's still the
potential militia at best.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
