Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
so presumably there's no legal basis for disarming gangs in a city, based on this reading of the second amendment--i mean, what's the difference between a militia and a gang, really, except that presumably one approves at some level of a militia and does not approve of a gang?
so let's see: the constitution was ratified in 1791.
this is 2008.
what's changed in the interim?
well, one thing that's changed is the development of a modern state. and one of the things that defines the modern state is its "monopoly on legitimate violence"....
maybe the second amendment is among the more entirely time-bound elements of the constitution, speaking *entirely* to 1791 and not at all to conditions that obtain now.
|
the whole entire aspect of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the government did NOT have the monopoly on legitimate violence. It was to ensure that the people would always be able to maintain control over freedom and liberty should the ballot box not work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Does the Second suggest that one is required to behave as a member of this militia should a given appropriate situation arise? Under what circumstances do I go from Joe Schmo to active militia member? What if I'm not particularly "regulated" with weapons, in other words what if I'm not training in the use of firearms?
|
The 2nd Amendment protects YOUR right to retain liberty and freedom from an oppressive government, foreign invasion, or domestic insurrection. If YOU fail to be 'regulated' (knowledgable and proficient with weapons) then YOU fail freedom and liberty. end of story, point blank, and period.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Last edited by dksuddeth; 07-04-2008 at 03:17 PM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|