View Single Post
Old April 28, 2009, 07:06 PM   #52
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,623
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
If the militia is a completely dead issue,
It is a dead issue as to the individual RKBA. Prior decisions and law was interpreted to mean that the right was related only to service in the militia and not for personal self defense.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Isn't the preservation of the ability to raise a militia, inherent in the amendment?
Yes and the states can still do it if they wish and arm them too but they don't need to because of the National Guard.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
what about all that talk by the court of resisting a tyrannical government?
Dicta. The belief then (1789) was that we would have little or no standing army and that the state's militias would resist tyranny as they would be more loyal to the state and would resist a tyrannical central government. Since the militias would be larger than the standing army and controlled by the states the central government would not be able to take over.

Or are you suggesting that the national guard would do that on our behalf?
If it came to that yes, but it would not because of our democratic institutions.
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Page generated in 0.04675 seconds with 7 queries