Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Minneapolis gunman was mentally sick: Family [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)30. Militias are NOT a moot question.
Good Reason for it The universal right to bear arms predates the time when we had a large standing army. When the right to bear arms was written, raids by indians were a real possibility in nearly every state. (I think Delaware and Rhode Island were pretty much out of that, as well as New Jersey). I think the last Comanche attack on San Antonio was in the 1870s (made it as far as the corner of commerce and soledad. So explain, if militias are now a moot question, what excuse is there for universal gun ownership. Please don't say self protection. Self destruction is more likely.
Yes, militias were intended to be used for external threats to the people. They were also intended to be used for internal threats to the people, specifically the federal government. This is why a decentralized military force was adopted, rather than a centralized one under the control of the central government.
We may no longer be under threat from Native American attacks, but this does not mean that there is no longer a danger of attack from someone else, or oppression from within.
So militias are NOT a moot question. They simply no longer exist anymore. Which is no doubt why the founders did not enumerate the right to keep and bear arms to the militias or the states, but to the people.
Also, self-protection is a perfectly valid reason to own firearms, as is hunting.
The second amendment does not say that militia use is the ONLY reason for owning firearms, it only provides A reason for firearm ownership.
It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not imply that the only reason for going to the store is to buy bread, nor that bread is the only thing that stores sell.
Yes, militias were intended to be used for external threats to the people. They were also intended to be used for internal threats to the people, specifically the federal government. This is why a decentralized military force was adopted, rather than a centralized one under the control of the central government.
We may no longer be under threat from Native American attacks, but this does not mean that there is no longer a danger of attack from someone else, or oppression from within.
So militias are NOT a moot question. They simply no longer exist anymore. Which is no doubt why the founders did not enumerate the right to keep and bear arms to the militias or the states, but to the people.
Also, self-protection is a perfectly valid reason to own firearms, as is hunting.
The second amendment does not say that militia use is the ONLY reason for owning firearms, it only provides A reason for firearm ownership.
It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not imply that the only reason for going to the store is to buy bread, nor that bread is the only thing that stores sell.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
But any guarantee of access to healthcare that could have treated this man is, wait for it...
ck4829
Sep 2012
#2
You'll be happy to hear that if he had been adjudicated mentally ill for commitment...
aikoaiko
Oct 2012
#86
It's extremely difficult to get a person adjudicated as mentally incompetent, even with Alzheimer's
slackmaster
Oct 2012
#31
I know from experience - Even when you get them hospitalized involuntarily, they still...
slackmaster
Oct 2012
#43
The state militias still exist. Residents are still subject to conscription in an emergency.
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#12
No, the unorganized components of the state militias organize themseleves as needed
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#22
You should read it. From Article I, Section 8, The scope of legislative power, i.e. that of Congress
slackmaster
Oct 2012
#63
You're not making any sense at all. The section of the Constutution I quoted...
slackmaster
Oct 2012
#70
If I were in the milita, I would not be under Militia Regulation at all times.
PavePusher
Oct 2012
#59
Maybe, or perhaps he should have been taking some kind of medication but wasn't
slackmaster
Oct 2012
#44
So THIS Whack Job is Now Our Militia and He's Constitutionally Protected ?!?!?!
fightthegoodfightnow
Oct 2012
#50
Everyone who hasn't been legally disqualified from owning a gun has a right to own a gun
slackmaster
Oct 2012
#65
There is a difference between owning a few guns and a bunch of guns. Also difference in guns at home
Hoyt
Oct 2012
#76
You are certainly consistent in your support of authoritarian, police-state measures being used...
slackmaster
Oct 2012
#77
Thank you for posting this here. I like when gun policy talk comes out of the gungeon.
aikoaiko
Oct 2012
#87