View Single Post
Old April 28, 2009, 07:55 PM   #56
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
... it is obvious that the preferatory clause is an explanation that states the people cannot be deprived arms so that they can organize, comprise, participate, or whatever other term you'd like to use for take part in the militia.
Remembering that the prefatory clause was but one explanation, then yes, this is loosely correct.

I say loosely, because at that time, it was necessary for folks who lived out in the frontier, voluntarily associated and trained with one another. This was the local militia.

Often, a call to arms was given by the local magistrate or sheriff (for those jurisdictions that had them), when needed to enforce local laws against villains, ruffians or Indians (there were no such things as police, as we know them now). The call to arms was answered by the local people acting as a militia.

That was then. Nowadays, most States have legislation in place to call up the militia, even if never used.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Isn't the preservation of the ability to raise a militia, inherent in the amendment?
Preserving the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, is integral to the authority of the State to call up a defensive force in case of invasion. This authority of the State is over and above the abilities of the US Armed Forces and the National Guard.

This also answers your part about resisting a tyrannical government. How?

The thing to keep in mind is that at the time this nation was founded, people trusted their local (as in State) government much more than this new creation, the central government (as it was called in those times). Most were not concerned over rights violations by the States. It was the Federal Government that people feared. In the context of the times, these thoughts were undisputed.

Nowadays, I suppose a scenario could be made that the Feds turned against the people and the State called the upon its citizens to defend the State. If the citizens agreed with this reasoning, then they would pose a huge obstacle to a federal takeover. However remote this possibility may be, the RKBA would stand in its (the States) stead.

However, I don't believe the scenario, above, would actually play out in that manner, as we would effectively be in another civil war. Not something to think lightly upon. Also something off topic to this thread.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03094 seconds with 7 queries