Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state?
2011-04-11T15:38:47Z
Aw, rodney h, why so hostile? And why, with a thousand essays to choose from, did you select a quote that has nothing to do with a well regulated militia? And why call me "dumb" and poke fun at me for not reading, when you obviously failed to read the question?
2011-04-11T16:39:33Z
Rodney: I am genuinely impressed that you have read so much. And I could probably learn much from you. But you have no cause to call me "dumb" or "ignorant." You made all sorts of wrong assumptions about me, based on one simple question. That is neither fair nor kind.
2011-04-11T16:42:36Z
Bunkerbuste: Well, of course I can't ask the founding fathers, because they're dead. If I could ask them, I expect they would say, "Yes, in our time it was necessary. Hence the 2nd amendment!" Do you think it's still necessary, in modern times?
2011-04-11T16:48:15Z
Gray Wanderer: Is that what is meant by "well-regulated militia"? Is the purpose of such a militia to "keep the military in check"? I thought, in colonial times, the militia *was* the military.
Gray Wanderer2011-04-11T15:03:37Z
Favorite Answer
Yes, which is why the people have the right to keep and bear arms, to keep the military in check.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
— Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1
----------------------------- @Kable; You would have, at most, 100,000 Marines, against the 300,000 who would still honor their oath, and the millions of Marine veterans who are now a part of that militia.
And that is just the Marines....
------------------------------------------ Everyone being able to be armed is what is to keep the military/militia in check.
Man I'm with the fed, Marines specifically, it doesn't matter how good your militia is, you goin' to go toe-to-toe with Marines, Air Force, Army, Army National Guard, and the Navy? Keep your guns around, always, everyone should have a weapon, but it don't mean **** when it comes to the security of the state, no matter how well regulated.
you acquire it spot on. could no longer say it extra helpful myself. ingredient word - the protection stress are the persons, conversely the surely everyone seems to be the protection stress. the U. S. government exchange into based on the theory that its electorate does no longer be oppressed by way of tyrannical governments. the indoors maximum possession of weapons helped confirm and keeps to verify this freedom. the U. S. shape, mutually as possibly fallacious in some aspects, is between the main suitable information of all time. Its up there with the Magna Carta and the letter from Queen Izabella to Chris Columbus to bypass forth and detect new worlds.
Yes and if you check Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution you will discover that that well regulated militia is ultimately under Federal control The gun crazies commonly held belief that the militia was supposed to be an adhoc group of unregulated citizens whose purpose was to shoot at government soldiers is complete and total bull-spit
I'm telling you, the only reason they didn't march into our country on the ground on September 11 is because they know there are more guns than people in our households. The anti-gun crowd would have been finding the nearest armed person to hide behind in a scenario like that.
P.S. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.