Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrixpujols11
Militia: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
Hmmm, well recently there haven't been many rebellions that are being put down or a revolutionary war taking place on our soil. I see no need for an army composed of ordinary citizens, for there is no army or opposing force that a militia would fight. An army is not necessary. I truly hope that with that I didn't waste your time or anybody else on this forum's time  . The "right to bear arms" is being taken out of context, as there are not many "well regulated militias" but there are active firearm users who abuse this amendment. |
Golly... So what you’re saying here is, in effect, that you don't understand what a principle is OR you do know and you sought to avoid the discussion of your ignorance through the above distraction?
We already understood your 'feelings' on the militia; that wasn't the question.
The question was WHAT CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PRINCIPLE WHICH PROVIDE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS... You see sis, the right to bear arms preceded the US Constitution. It preceded the fledgling United States at the time the legal protections found in the amendment were added to the Constitution. The 2nd amendment merely noted the right and gave an example in reasoning for the necessity of the protections; it did this in order to remind future generations of THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BECOME TYRANNICAL.
Now again... What changes in the
right to bear arms have occurred which make it necessary to remove the protections?
For instance; do you feel that the individual is no longer responsible for their own security? Is it your feelings that you are not obligated to see to your own defense? Has something occurred which you feel resolves you of the sacred responsibility to protect yourself?
Do not trot this inane red herring out again... as to do so will be a default concession on your part that this position of yours is nonsense of the lowest order.