Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

\
No, an well regulated militia is specifically the body of citizens armed with the best military weaponry of the day. Every white male of fighting age was in considered to be a part of the militia.

Specifically?  Where does it specifically say that?

it doesnt say that in the constitution. but that does not change thed defition of well regulated militia at the time it was written.

[Loud Whispers]

it doesnt say that in the constitution. but that does not change thed defition of well regulated militia at the time it was written.

Were the folks who wrote the constitution kind enough to give a specific definition of a regulated militia at the time? Otherwise I'd go for the next best source; the US supreme court.

[GreatJustice]

it doesnt say that in the constitution. but that does not change thed defition of well regulated militia at the time it was written.

Were the folks who wrote the constitution kind enough to give a specific definition of a regulated militia at the time? Otherwise I'd go for the next best source; the US supreme court.

So the Supreme Court gets to decide?

Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))

[PTTG??]

\
No, an well regulated militia is specifically the body of citizens armed with the best military weaponry of the day. Every white male of fighting age was in considered to be a part of the militia.

Specifically?  Where does it specifically say that?

it doesnt say that in the constitution. but that does not change thed defition of well regulated militia at the time it was written.

So you're saying the constitution was a document of the times and that it demands interpretation based on the context of the matter at hand?

Would you please go talk to American conservatives for a while? It'd be nice if someone could dissuade them of the belief that Jesus Christ came down from heaven and personally wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in the blood of Brits with a quill plucked from the first Bald Eagle on the North American continent.

[mainiac]

So you're saying the constitution was a document of the times and that it demands interpretation based on the context of the matter at hand?

No, I'm saying that you are using the word "specifically" in place of "in my opinion".

If you meant "specifically" then you would have very little difficulty pointing to the specific place where this is indicated.

[Loud Whispers]

2. Sources, sources, sources. Veteran posters around here will mostly enforce this themselves, but it bears mentioning: If you come and make some random-ass claim, you better have something to support it, or you will get laughed out of town.

In the land of the derails, the one rule is RedKing.

[hemmingjay]

Every American soldier must memorize and recite the following:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

What happens when the politicians become the domestic enemy that threatens the Constitution?

[misko27]

It means irrelevant, because the US is one of the most legitamate government's in the whole world. It's pretty much impossible to organize coup's or mass rebellion. And I don't mean protests or stuff, I mean rebellion. In Spain, striking miners use makeshift rpgs.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 

It'd make a great dictatorship frankly if it wasn't for that whole "democracy" thing actually.\

[scriver]

Posting to troll.

[Loud Whispers]

It means irrelevant, because the US is one of the most legitamate government's in the whole world. It's pretty much impossible to organize coup's or mass rebellion.

This does not make a legitimate government.

It isn't a sound political climate when you have a significant number of people buying guns for the sole reason of being capable of rebelling against the government.

It's kind of creepy if you would think a government capable of oppression and crushing insurrection makes it the most able. One would think you would be more better off with a government that works. Or at the very least, isn't openly accepting bribes "lobbying." Or openly destroying civil liberties. Committing war crimes. Dragging the world into archaic beliefs "global warming is a myth..."
The list is long and full of melancholy.

[GlyphGryph]

Look, Scriver! I'm SWEDISH now!

In /other/ politics news, Barney Frank has volunteered to be a Senator again, but only if he is asked really really nicely.

[misko27]

Your definition of legitamate is different from mine. Legitimate does not mean "best", or "good" or even "decent". It means "acceptable". And that, the Government is. A non-legitamate government, by definition, is a inherently unstable, usually transition or post coup government. The US is neither. Is democracy, which tends to be moer legitamate then other government types.
 
A totally legitamate ogvernment is Coup-proof, because they are the accepted leader. That is what legitamate means. Because it's so easy to vote people out, the government often remains legitamate in spite of masssive evidence to the contrary.I'm taking legitamate in the classical sense of the term. As such, in that the US cannot be taken down by a coup, or other actual military change or rebellion, it is, regardless, legitimate.
 
Also, if the US government was so terrible, I wouldn't be alive. I owe them alot. My food, my home, my lights my insurance. This internet is actually someone elses though.

[Frumple]

You... kinda' have to balance that against the rest of it, if you're going to try to justify the state of USA government to, like... anyone else. The states are kinda' legitimately terrible in a lot of ways. We do a good chunk of nasty shit both to other people and ourselves. Whether the rest of it (whatever you define "rest of it" as) makes up for that or to what degree kinda' varies based on person and heuristic being used to measure.

Which is really, really driving off the metapolitic cliff, methinks.

[Powder Miner]

Would you please go talk to American conservatives for a while? It'd be nice if someone could dissuade them of the belief that Jesus Christ came down from heaven and personally wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in the blood of Brits with a quill plucked from the first Bald Eagle on the North American continent.

This kind of thing is why I never post politics on these forums.

[mainiac]

So the US is illegitimate because a bunch of survivalist nuts think it is and they have the most guns per capita?  Well at least it beats strange women lying in lakes passing out swords.