View Single Post
Old January 21st, 2013, 04:10 PM   #67 (permalink)
Speed Daemon
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post
Thanks for that.. I was of course aware that there are militias.. but the point i was making (and trying not to get sidetracked by) was that a the time of the founding fathers the 'envisioned' milita was instead of the standing army (which could become an implement of tyranny). I'm not sure if most of the organisations listed in your article actually fulfill that role.
In this nuclear age, there's little doubt that relatively small militias without an air force of any kind could actually put down our military. But we still have the right to try. I think that most of us would rather have a chance to die trying over no choice at all. There's also an argument to be made for giving our militias a real fighting chance.

Quote:
There's also the National Guard which could be argued is the Militia.
That's the problem with The National Guard--it no longer exists to enforce states' rights or do anything under the Second Amendment. It's just another branch of the DOD, along with the Reserves. Telling Americans "this is your Second Amendment rights at work" is a falsehood. I don't think there's any doubt whose orders they'd follow if push comes to shove. IMHO an institutionalized falsehood like the Guard is not compatible with a free society.

Quote:
and of course there is an argument that 'Every indivdual is a one man militia' but you'd have to stretch the point to make that fit with the idea that was originally meant.
I haven't heard that one before, but it reminds me of those silly "army of one" recruitment commercials. A lone gunman? I think we all can see what's wrong there!

Quote:
Of course then you can have a separate discussion about if the constitution is a document that is 'set in stone' with a completely fixed meaning based on the view of the founding fathers in the 18th century.. or if its a 'living document' which can be continually re-interpreted to keep in line with the will of the people in the 21st century.
If you're talking about "strict constructionism", there's no basis in reality for it.

Obviously the People can amend the Constitution if circumstances demand it. I don't see any serious movement along those lines, so...
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
psionandy (January 21st, 2013)