3 ms·

First thing I noticed >“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free s

by elthran 11y ago

First thing I noticed >“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776 I bet the same people that use this section as a justification of armed citizenry acting as a militia have no issue with the US army being active

sageikosa 11y ago
Well that section isn't from the Federal constitution; and it's circumstances were the colonial military being controlled by the Kingdom of Great Britain, and practically everything else (except trade and taxation) being controlled locally, namely the operation of courts for civil transactions. The dislike for a standing army was always more of a warning and a distaste among the founders than any actual legal or constitutional prohibition. Via the constitution, militias are desired (expected?) to be well-regulated, meaning you probably don't get to be a "militia" (in the any legal sense) just because you declare it. But the right to bear arms is really independent of that; and comes from fear of military occupation (foreign or domestic) as much as by anything else.