[ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then?

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Sun Jul 13 02:18:00 UTC 2008


Damien (a foreigner) writes

> One of the comments notes:
>
> <We're all terribly eager to convince everyone else that the Constitution's meaning lines up with our political agenda. I suspect 
> that this is rooted in the myth we pass along to our children from elementary school onward ­ that the Constitution is a perfect 
> (and perfectly clear) document that lays out our God-given rights. Instead of a framework designed by some guys who were 
> ultimately only statesmen doing the best that they could according to their ideals. >
>
> I get this strong impression as well. One of the

It's perfectly obvious to people that the founders
of the American nation living in the late 1700s were
much more intelligent than Americans are today.
It should be apparent even to a foreigner

> benefits of being a visitor who shared only somewhat overlapping ideological loading in childhood is that such a visitor might 
> sometimes see elements of, uh, habituated superstition in the reasoning of nationals.

Consider who wrote

   As far as depends upon the executive, measures preparatory for
   the worst, while it hopes for the best, will be pursued; and I
   shall endeavor to keep things in status quo until your
   negotiation assumes a more decisive form; which I hope will
   soon be the case, as there are many hot heads and impetuous
   spirits among us who with difficulty can be kept within
   bounds. This, however, ought not to precipitate your conduct;
   for, as it has been observed, there is a "tide in human
   affairs" that ought always to be watched; and because I
   believe all who are acquainted with you, will readily concede,
   that considerations both public and private combine to urge
   you to bring your mission to a close with as much celerity as
   the nature of it will admit.

   As you have been, and will continue to be, fully informed by
   the Secretary of State of all transactions of a public nature,
   which relate to, or may have an influence on the points of
   your mission, it would be unnecessary for me to touch upon
   any of them in this letter; was it not for the presumption, that,
   the insurrection in the western counties of this State has
   excited much speculation, and a variety of opinions abroad;
   and will be represented differently according to the wishes of
   some, and the prejudices of others, who may exhibit it as an
   evidence of what has been predicted "that we are unable to
   govern ourselves." Under this view of the subject, I am happy
   in giving it to you as the general opinion that this event
   having happened at the time it did, was fortunate, although'
   it will be attended with considerable expense.

Although this was *not* written by any literary heavyweight such
as John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, it did come from the pen of
one of the first presidents of the U.S.[1]   Which of the last five
or six presidents could have communicated with this much
subtlety or dextrous use of language? As for Bill Clinton, perhaps
the brightest of the last half dozen, has anything he's ever
written been above the level of a bright upper class twelve
year old of the 1790s?

> I admire what I know of the Constitution, as a good try by a group of smart, practical Enlightenment thinkers hundreds of years 
> ago--but I never ever have to fight off early conditioning informing me that the document is "sacred," a sort of Testament from 
> God via His representatives on earth. I had enough of that
> when I was a Catholic kid.

I understand, and I totally share your sentiments. Not
only do people hold the founders in awe, as they should,
but they somehow believe that amending the sacred
document according to the levels of our admittedly
currently mild intellects would still be the wisest course
of action. Little good does talk of "free speech" and
"bear arms" for a people who require everything to be
spelled out so that folks of a fifth grade education can
understand it.

However, there is an even more sinister reason that we
don't try to make the so-called ruling documents
understandable by people today. By putting all questions
to the Supreme Court, any written intention of any document
can be circumvented, no matter how clearly put down.
"Free speech" by these fine minds has been taken to
include burning documents or pendants in public. (It not
true that people in power today are too stupid to understand
that it was "political speech" that was obviously meant; no,
by including any idiotic thing whatsoever (e.g. going naked)
under the umbrella of "free speech", it's possible to fulfill
Earl Warren's great dream: that America cease to be a country
ruled by laws, but rather ruled by men, men who know what
is right (not what is "lawful").

> But *understanding* such framing is probably fairly important in practical terms, since the US state keeps referring to this 
> document as its legal basis (or so I gather).

Don't be taken in, foreigner.  As I explained, that's just
the public position for all the rubes to believe. Power
is concentrated in the Regulatory Agencies and, to a
lesser extent, the Judges.  Ever wonder why so many
decisions are 5-4?

Lee

[1] Letter to John Jay from George Washington, November 1794 




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list