ever notice the other half of it?


PDA






Flyerman
January 20, 2008, 12:09 AM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "


as some of us may know, when it was written, 'well-regulated' meant well organized. and the word 'militia' meant all able bodied men of a certain age, whether they wanted to fight or not, were considered to be a part of it. if you didn't want to go and fight, fine. but nary a soul was of the type then. now, put all the words together, and i take it to mean that all able bodied men will take it upon themselves to organize a fighting army and repel and vanquish any and all threats, foreign and domestic - key word - to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of lifelong happiness. the second half of the 2nd amendment has been and will be debated for a long time, but it seems to me in these increasingly troubled times, the first half should be held under the looking glass a lot more. i, for one, consider myself to be a part of the 'well regulated Militia'.




anyone else?

If you enjoyed reading about "ever notice the other half of it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hardtarget
January 20, 2008, 12:22 AM
Yes. And one day we will be in the position to show our colors. It seems to me the defend part is fast coming to us. I just hope we still have our guns...I don't want to show up with a sharp, pointy stick.

Mark.

ColinthePilot
January 20, 2008, 12:25 AM
I'll still have mine. I might have to go dig them up, but I'll have them

Keegan
January 20, 2008, 12:30 AM
Militia member here. Even if the man takes away my guns and I have to fight with nothing but my USMC ka-bar, I'll be there.

1200 meters
January 20, 2008, 12:44 AM
They can always debate it, and will. There really isn't two parts. The entire right is ment for the populace to be able to throw off a oppressive government. precisely why "not to be infringed" actually allow the populace to own arms in parity with the military. Think about it, they only invesioned muzzle loader tech to include cannon. That doesn't limit present day population to muzzle loader on just hunting weapons. just a thought guys.:scrutiny:

silverlance
January 20, 2008, 01:07 AM
It is ridiculous to think that the founders framed the constitution to protect the right of the MILITARY to bear arms, which is what many antis opinate. Since when did the military of any government require constitutional protection to bear arms!? Did Napoleon need a legal argument to arm France's armies? Caesar? Henry VIII? George I? President Bush Jr?

ColinthePilot
January 20, 2008, 01:12 AM
If the man takes my guns away...he'll get a crappy pistol or a .22 or something. Everyone talks about gun control only affecting law abiding citizens, and thats correct. If they decide to start banning guns, I'll decide to stop being a law abiding citizen. My behavior won't change a bit, but I'll have guns which will make me a criminal.

Pax Jordana
January 20, 2008, 01:17 AM
I'll submit that we can all be the militia, but we're not well-organized. Because I have my own limit to what I'll take, and frankly I feel anyone with less tolerance is a loonie. That's how it is with everyone - fudds last, then self-defenders, then joe ownsagun.

That's why incrementalism is the name of the game - if 'they' only bug a few of 'us' at a time, theoretically there's less resistance.

The start of organizing the common man would be to gauge at what point the common man will take up arms.

If you enjoyed reading about "ever notice the other half of it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!