Question about the 2nd Amendment (well regulated militia)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm just using it as an example. It would be illegal if there was not a fire and you create a panic/riot. It just shows that the right to speak freely is not absolute. We could just as easily use the example of religious ceremonies which use illicit drugs as being illegal, generally. Another good example is that you can not make threats against the President, which is also "technically" a free speech violation.
Click to expand...
And they are punished, after the fact. And somehow this is supposed to be a justification for prior restraint against gun owners? The courts generally take a very dim view of prior restraint; it's my belief that the courts have an inherent conflict of interest in Second Amendment cases, and that's the only reason they allow it.

The entire militia clause is now a moot point. It no longer has anything to do with the RKBA, in the context the battles we are and will be engaged in.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court in the Miller decision would disagree with you. Arms appropriate for military service are the most 2A protected class. Scalia and Thomas seem to understand that, but it wasn't an issue in the Heller case.
 
Last edited:
Dare you dis the enlightenment?
Click to expand...

I dare, I dare.:D

The only way to have a right is to define a right. The only way to define a right is to have a consensus on what the right is and/or enforce it. the only way to have a consensus on a right and/or enforce same is via a polity.

Thats why I no longer can avail myself of the ius primae noctis

WildheyalwhatsupAlaska TM
 
Nowhere in the constitution is it written "The right of the people to form or serve in a state sponsored militia shall not be infringed."

That being the case why are we talking about the militia?

Some people like to get this grand idea that the an unorganized militia is some insanely powerful tool for fighting tyranny and that if need be they will grab their "SHTF" gun and take on the man.

If you want to understand the effectiveness of an unorganized militia in modern warfare you need to look at iraq and afghanistan. Sure they harrass American Soldiers and kill them but these unorganized militias suffer casualties in such higher numbers than we do its not even comparable. This doesn't even take into account that the American military hasn't even inflicted casualties to the fullest extent possible.

Many people think they have the skills, knowledge, and equipment to form part of a "militia". But the truth is the leadership, tactical training, and military equipment necessary (your AR15 with a train yard worth of rails and equipment doesn't count) to be an effective military force just isn't there.

Some people need to get this glorious vision of some kind of revolutionary, post apocalyptic world where they are the leader of some militia out of their heads.

The fact that the original concept of the militia is dead does not in anyway diminish or restrict the RKBA.
 
I would talk to your state government then and see why they won't raise one. They can if they wish. Why do you think they don't?
Click to expand...

For the obvious reason that we are not presently in a crisis that warrants it.

Do you contend that they wouldn't call up armed citizens if there was cataclysmic collapse sufficient to overwhelm the professionals?

Would the state government let genocide proceed rather than call up an armed citizenry because of a deficit in training?
 
Call it a militia or not, an armed citizenry is something. It's a mexican standoff, in and of itself it's a deterrant, it functions without functioning, and it never needs to organize...because it has the arms. It just is. It is either a thorn in the side of unforseen, unchecked power, or it isn't...
It has and does work, regardless of what you want to call it. The proof that it works, is that we are all still able to be armed for our personal protection.
 
Last edited:
The only way to have a right is to define a right. The only way to define a right is to have a consensus on what the right is and/or enforce it. the only way to have a consensus on a right and/or enforce same is via a polity.
Click to expand...

This consensus was determined in eternity past by the Trinity (See Genesis 1) not by a government entity.;)

Sorry, I think we're getting way off topic.
 
The 2nd Amendment and Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are not mentioned in Genesis. That is a prohibited Starfleet research project that is probably an AOW or destructive device.

This thread is started to go in the dumper. Hint.

A philosophical discussion of whether rights exist as an abstract principle independent of humanity, such as the Pythogorean principle, or are a social consenus formed by interactions of learning, culture and our evolutionary past is fun but can get deep.

Opinions of rights and the natural course of acceptable behavior changes as civilizations rise and fall. We have a set that appear with some social history. Other cultures have different views. Now isn't that an insight.

What does it have to do with militia? I think Al answered that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top