Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:47:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1619 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > But that's it! If you're eligible for citizenship, you're eligible to (nay,
> > you have a duty to...) own a gun.
>
> ...and do you therefore also have a duty to be part of a well regulated
militia?
Well, I think the duty part is Larry's opinion. One that I vaguely share, but
I certainly wouldn't hold people to. It's just that we think more highly of
people who fully participate in the way of American governance. There are lots
of people who scam out of jury duty, ignore their chance to vote, fail to stay
armed and practiced, etc. Those people are not being fully involved in holding
the reigns of their country and seeing that a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people is actually doing good stuff.
The deal with the militia is, I think, an issue of synchronicity. I can be
considered a part of the militia simply by my presense as an able-bodied
American. My "duty" to whatever extent it exists changes with circumstance.
If the US were invaded, I think I would have a duty to act as part of a militia
to repel the invaders. When the federal government becomes intollerable, I
think I will have a duty to act as a part of a militia to replace a just rule
of law.
But you're trying to get me to acknowledge something about the phrase "well
regulated" that is incorrect. Well regulated does not mean directed and
formally chartered. It means that the members are ready to participate because
they have stayed in practice.
> > Taking courses, appearing before review boards, etc etc are all mechanisms
> > of restraint of this right to bear arms
"Infringements" on the right to keep and bear arms. Infringements are
specifically and pointedly unconstitutional.
> But couldn't they be seen also as a method of regulating the militia well?
Sure. You could see them as a method of regulated green-headed ducks. But it
doesn't matter. Those rules, in addition to whatever else they might do,
infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so they are freely
ignored, and should be declared null and void by the Court.
> And just who is it that the militia is supposed to be well regulated by,
anyway?
By the individual members.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) I wonder how this does/would work in practice. Regulation of an armed body by individuals would not appear to be too effective. For instance, do you see, in a time of crisis in the US, a militia sponteneously arising from its citizenry, and, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| Some questions from down under... In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) ...and do you therefore also have a duty to be part of a well regulated militia? (...) But couldn't they be seen also as a method of regulating the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
