3 ms·

Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies (we didn

by hga 11y ago

Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies (we didn't really have much of one until the Cold War) and "select militias", which were groups of armed men selected by some criteria (like being a loyal Tory) instead of "everyone" answering the call up. Some of the Founders wanted us to depend entirely on a militia system, but others, including the supremely important George Washington, commander in chief during the Revolutionary War, said no way, Regulars are required for serious wars. And his and the other experienced commanders opinions could not be denied, so the dependent clause, very unusual in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, was a sop thrown to the pro-militia only group.

EdHominem 11y ago
> Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. This line implies you think it is not a dependent clause but later you say it is...? Also, what is the impact you're implying? But anyways, the only actionable piece of the 2nd is "the right shall not be infringed". > And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies [...] Rightly so. But the original reasoning behind the laws aren't the laws. For better or worse. It's been acknowledged that people have this right (to keep and bear arms) and you cannot take rights away. For instance, we can't reinstate slavery, even with another amendment. It's not like the 13th amendment made it illegal; the amendment forced the government to acknowledge that it does not have that power and cannot enact slavery - those orders would be illegal. A vote to repeal the 13th would be unconstitutional in its very nature because it recognizes a right. Unlike repealing the 18th establishing prohibition, for example.

by hga 11y ago

EdHominem 11y ago

> Indeed, except for the first bit being a dependent clause. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. This line implies you think it is not a dependent clause but later you say it is...? Also, what is the impact you're implying? But anyways, the only actionable piece of the 2nd is "the right shall not be infringed". > And behind that is some politics: our Founders were supremely suspicious of standing armies [...] Rightly so. But the original reasoning behind the laws aren't the laws. For better or worse. It's been acknowledged that people have this right (to keep and bear arms) and you cannot take rights away. For instance, we can't reinstate slavery, even with another amendment. It's not like the 13th amendment made it illegal; the amendment forced the government to acknowledge that it does not have that power and cannot enact slavery - those orders would be illegal. A vote to repeal the 13th would be unconstitutional in its very nature because it recognizes a right. Unlike repealing the 18th establishing prohibition, for example.