The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - A great example of why law-abiding citizens need the RKBA

MLeake · November 1, 2010, 09:23 AM

MTT TL, should I assume that you are one of the "for militia purposes only" advocates? If not, what "intention" do you mean?

I'd say the right to self-defense always was an intended part of 2A; defense against criminals, and ultimately (as borne out by writings of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers; and also as borne out by their own prior actions) defense against a potentially tyrannic government.

Seem to recall from some of your other posts that you are or were military. You may recall CJCS guidance on the "inherent right and responsibility" of self-defense of own unit, own national units, and designated friendly units. Do you really think the founders intended to allow only government representatives the "inherent right" of self-defense?

But I may have misunderstood your meaning...

I'm pretty sure I understand and agree with you that education, youth programs, and similar methods for preventing kids from joining gangs in the first place are the better way; I think we should fund and support such methods. But, even with those in place, there will always be true low-lifes. We can (ideally) minimize their numbers through positive means. However, when one finds oneself confronted by these types, it does no good at that point to wish for better social programs.

November 1, 2010, 09:23 AM	#9
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Not the intention for it anyway? MTT TL, should I assume that you are one of the "for militia purposes only" advocates? If not, what "intention" do you mean? I'd say the right to self-defense always was an intended part of 2A; defense against criminals, and ultimately (as borne out by writings of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers; and also as borne out by their own prior actions) defense against a potentially tyrannic government. Seem to recall from some of your other posts that you are or were military. You may recall CJCS guidance on the "inherent right and responsibility" of self-defense of own unit, own national units, and designated friendly units. Do you really think the founders intended to allow only government representatives the "inherent right" of self-defense? But I may have misunderstood your meaning... I'm pretty sure I understand and agree with you that education, youth programs, and similar methods for preventing kids from joining gangs in the first place are the better way; I think we should fund and support such methods. But, even with those in place, there will always be true low-lifes. We can (ideally) minimize their numbers through positive means. However, when one finds oneself confronted by these types, it does no good at that point to wish for better social programs.