Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gc70
The historical misunderstanding is that the militia aspired to in the language of the Second Amendment is the only form of militia. Militias have existed for millenia as people acted collectively to defend and ensure order in their communities.
Militias are "a romantic notion" only if one is willing to deny the evidence of current events. Militias are active in Iraq and many other countries where warfare and lawlessness have threatened communities and the people have responded collectively to defend and ensure order in their communities.
|
The militia were not created by the common law. Militia law in the US was statutory law. The charter of each American colony included authority to create militia units. All American colonies passed militia laws under the authority granted by their charters. There never was a period of common law militia in America.
The concept of the militia to remember is that it was a
SYSTEM to create organized armed forces for the colony. The militia could be called out by local officials for defense purposes or called out by the colonial leadership. There was also fighting and killing done by groups that were not militia units.
This is what the militia was. That is not reality today.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gc70
Arguing that the absence of a 1789-style militia means that the militia is dead is about the same as arguing that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to 1789-era weapons.
|
No it just means things have changed. Militia as I stated above had a specific purpose defined by law. Law has modified that meaning. The second part of your statement does not follw for it speaks to technology not law.