I was just doing some thinking............


Thank God I'm alive!
I'm currently reading "Shooting Straight: Telling the Truth About Guns in America" by Wayne LaPierre and James Jay Baker, and it got me to thinking about something that I want to discuss here. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the right to keep and bear arms is entirely contingent upon membership in a "well-regulated militia." As everyone here knows, all males in this country are required to register for the draft (Selective Service) when they turn eighteen. In my opiniom, this satisfies the militia requirement of 2A, yet I have never heard gun rights advocates bring this up when arguing with antis. I could see this argument really being the trump card for our side.You guys' thoughts?

Interesting point bringing the Selective Service requirement in for that purpose. I like it.

Conversely, what I DON'T like is when the anti's use that terminology (well-regulated militia) to insist the 2A does NOT apply to individuals, but the Gov't.

Now we all know the Supreme Court and dozens of Federal Court rulings have come down in FAVOR of 2A for individuals and not the state. We also know the current socialist regime and all the appointed goombas are extremely anti-gun, and against the 2A applying to individuals. (Thereby making them against the Constitution - this isn't news.)

The part of the argument the anti's fail to connect is the complete lack of consistency of their view. If ALL the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are intended for the individual citizen being protected AGAINST an out-of-control Gov't, then HOW can the 2A be the exception?! It just doesn't stand up. Of course it was written FOR the people, and NOT FOR the state.

I think the Selective Service aspect could be a powerful tool to dismiss the old myth that the 2A is "an out-dated concept" for a "time long ago." The 2A is still relevent, valid and effectual, regardless of how some feel about it.
Interesting thoughts, I had 3 daughters, Have not thought much about SS in 45 years, Really, I thought It went out with high button shoes, Kidding a side, If required, there won't be any civilians left after they are drafted into service and the only people left would be classified as a civilian force or militia. I think Az is correct... It could be a doubled edged sword.

:offtopic: Good to see you stirring the pot Tatted... Glad you are feeling better.
The way I've always seen it the part about "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" means that it might be necessary for the people at some point to oppose the government's army in order to maintain a free state. In other words if the government gets taken over by communists and we become "Nazi Germany part II" it may be that if we intend to be free much longer a "militia of the people" might be the only way to maintain feedom. I think that the founders were just trying to make sure that we never got taken over, subjected to a dictator in chief or never dissarmed to the point that we can't defend ourselves. Either that or the founders were just stating a fact before the meat of the ammendment. :biggrin:

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Latest member