|
Sorry to double post, but I've just realised your sig contains an argument that I feel enhances my point, and you probably feel enhances yours.
=================
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
=================
You SEEM to read it showing that the key point is that the people should be armed.
I read it to mean that IF the people are going to be armed, they ought FIRST have discipline.
All the rugged individualists may have personal discipline, but I find it hard to see that they could in time of need be welded into a valuable fighting force.
And another thing - what would people now be saying if the constitution had been written long enough ago that it gave citizens the specific right not to "bear arms" but to "carry swords" or "own bows"?
Would you now be seeking to argue that the founders MEANT high powered riffles? And what arms are included in "bear arms"? It seems acceptable to most people to restrict the use of military aircraft, missiles, rockets, tanks and the like.
What would happen if the Minutemen on the Canadian border wanted a fully armed A10? Or if a militia was founded off Portland and wanted an aircraft carrier?
Just asking.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
|