RKB only means we need a federal army?

B

baker437

New member
Student paper not only thinks that CPL should not be allowed on campus and that we need more gun control but the RKBA only means we need a federal army.

“As long as we have an army that works at the pleasure of a democratically elected government, the second amendment is being satisfied. For example, in a democracy, the people have the right to rule, but that does not mean every single person gets oversight on every single policy decision. Similarly, the Second Amendment refers only to an army of the people, not every single person carrying a firearm.” From Michigan Daily (Univ. of Mich.)

http://www.michigandaily.com/home/i...story_id=7b434bd1-6d2e-4a74-a9b7-1db09dc4ce4e

Please read this article and point out all the errors that are in it on the article’s blog.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Wow... just wow.

This person has obviously never taken a history class. Even reasonably intelligent anti-gun people admit that the 2nd is specifically about protecting the people from a tyrannical federal government. The argument they make is that its a right of the states rather than individual people. So while I still think they are wrong, they are a whole lot closer to the target than this nincompoop.

The fact the federal government HAS a military only reinforces the need for the states AND individuals to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Please note that I am not against having a federal military, I'm merely pointing out that if the federal government was taken over by a tyrant(s) it can be assumed that military will be under their power... thus not serving the purpose of the 2nd.
 
As long as we have an army that works at the pleasure of a democratically elected government, the second amendment is being satisfied. For example, in a democracy, the people have the right to rule, but that does not mean every single person gets oversight on every single policy decision. Similarly, the Second Amendment refers only to an army of the people, not every single person carrying a firearm.
Click to expand...

"As long as we have a free press, the first amendment is being satisifed. For example, in a democracy, the people have the right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean every single person gets oversight on every single newspaper article. Similarly, the First Amendment refers only to duly accredited newspapers and television stations, not every single person being able to print or broadcast their opinion."

How does that shoe fit? Same reasoning, same concept, same logic.
 
Marko, you have that logic a bit wrong...


Replace all the media outlets with one run by the federal government. NOW our 1st Amendment rights are being satisfied... after all, we elected those people, they should do all the talking for us.
 
Exactly. A better analogy would be:
"As long as we have a Government Printing Office, the first amendment is being satisifed. For example, in a democracy, the people have the right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean every single person gets oversight on every single GPO article. Similarly, the First Amendment refers only to duly accredited Government newspapers and television stations, not every single person being able to print or broadcast their opinion."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top