4 ms·
How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? The US has had a standing army for quite some time now, and by far the most powerful one in
by mcv 4y ago
How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? The US has had a standing army for quite some time now, and by far the most powerful one in the world. And the only thing that looks like a "well regulated militia" is the National Guard.
The second amendment could be interpreted as meaning that only members of the national guard can own guns, but it's not.
- seanw444 4y agoI'm pretty sure Article 1 Section 8 was supposed to prevent us from having a perpetual standing army, but here we are.
- gameman144 4y ago> How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? This is the interesting thing: in the context of the framers, a standing army would not diminish the importance of the rights of militias at all (and might increase its importance). Keep in mind that the US declared independence due to perceived government overreach from Britain, which had a huge standing army. One of the primary functions of the second amendment is to ensure that ad hoc militias are possible, to keep the government and its army from overreach.
- tekknik 4y agoA militia, by definition, cannot be professional soldiers. Americans owning guns is a well regulated militia.