4 ms·
IMO when the forming of militias became "extreme" (even though it's in the constitution) is when the writing was on the wall. You can't maintain freedom from th
by devmunchies 6y ago
IMO when the forming of militias became "extreme" (even though it's in the constitution) is when the writing was on the wall. You can't maintain freedom from the govt without keeping it in check.
The public grew an aversion to militia's and we've been boiling the frog with more laws since.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> IMO when the forming of militias became "extreme" (even though it's in the constitution) is when the writing was on the wall. “Militias” are not in the Constitution. The militia, collective and unitary, and belonging to the nation as a whole (with regard to which there are both federal and state powers and responsibilities specified), is in the main body of the Constitution, and reference to a, singular, militia as being necessary to (implicitly, each) State is made in the Second Amendment. There is nothing at all in the Constitution about the formation of, or anything else concerning, private militias.
- devmunchies 6y ago"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seems weird to have militia in the same sentence as the right to bear arms. Doesn't sound like its referencing the govt.
- znpy 6y ago> militias Oh shut up... The US Police is among the most militarized city-wide armed forces, you want to compare that with a mostly-unorganized group of random people protesting? Policemen and policewomen with bulletproof vests and automatic rifles on one side, people throwing rocks on the other side. Don't be silly.
- devmunchies 6y agoDon't shut down discussion. civilians don't fight like the police... e.g. Vietnam. Tyranny needs to be more expensive.