SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zzpat who wrote (63178)3/28/2018 6:05:25 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 363987
 
Are you "armed" by the government? No.
Are you disciplined by the government? No.
Are you organized by the government? No.

Does Congress control your training? No.

Does a state control the person who trains you? No.
Are you called into active service when we're at war? No.
Does the president become your commander in chief? No


Are any of those questions relevant? No

Both because

1 - "The right of the people", not "the right of the militia"

and

2 - The constitution gives the government the power to do such things, it doesn't say the feds have to do so, only that it has the power to do so (just as it doesn't require congress to declare war, we could theoretically stay at peace and it wouldn't violate the constitution). More to the point it doesn't say that in any case where the federal government doesn't' do any of those things you don't have a militia.

It doesn't say the feds have to arm the militia, or that anyone who isn't armed by the feds isn't a member of the militia (and according to US law millions who aren't armed by the feds are members of the militia).

The same applies to all those other issues. the feds are not required to do it, and whether or not they do it for some nothing in the constitution or even in US code precludes people not affected by such government actions from being the militia.



To: zzpat who wrote (63178)3/28/2018 6:25:13 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 363987
 
Also, at the time, the founders wanted no standing armies. The slave states wanted armed militias to hunt down runaway slaves and fight slave rebellions, etc. The military weapons of the time were single shot, black powder rifles, muskets and pistols.



To: zzpat who wrote (63178)3/28/2018 7:53:25 PM
From: koan  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 363987
 
Here is where I am coming from, I have watched the Republicans like a hawk for 50 years and I just never see them do anything constructive and usually are trying to tear down our society to make us idiots like Nancy Reagan's nutso just say no to drugs, or punitive sentences, private prisons, teaching abstinence instead of sex education, or denying evolution or global warming or getting rid of pollution regulations, or tinkle down economics.

They have been the major destroyers of this country for the 50 years I have been watching them.



To: zzpat who wrote (63178)3/29/2018 12:26:09 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 363987
 
The deciding vote on the meaning of the second amendment was Anthony Kennedy. His reasoning was that the framers would want people on the frontier to legally have guns to ward off bears, wolves and hostile indians. None of which we have today, but it's the 'original intent' that counts. Which is nuts.