Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:too bad (Score 1) 312

by Zak3056 (#66063448) Attached to: China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000

A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped

Excuse you? The entire reason for the Second Amendment was that the government could NOT equip enough militia. Your premise is extremely flawed.

Excuse you? The right to keep and bear arms ensures that the government does not have to equip the militia, the citizenry owns their own equipment. Many states required law that the citizenry own said equipment, the specifics of what the militiaman should be equipped with being enumerated in law.

The (federal) Militia Act of 1792 states "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

But, sure, my premise is extremely flawed.

Comment Re:too bad (Score 1) 312

by Zak3056 (#66061854) Attached to: China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000

Coll story, but what does it have to do with whether or not a militia is "well regulated" or not? It really doesn't matter who was swanning around Michigan chasing Mormons, the only thing that does matter is whether or not they were well trained and equipped while doing so. That's what "well regulated" means. A "militia" can be a bunch of randos with a zip gun between the five of them led by a guy who lasted a week in basic before being sent home. A "well regulated militia" is an effective, disciplined, military force.

The Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be revised or repealed. Don't just pretend it means something that it doesn't.

You've done nothing to refute either of the two points I made above, what am I pretending it means that it does not?

Comment Re:You will lose an arms fight against the US Govt (Score 1) 312

by Zak3056 (#66061488) Attached to: China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000

I am certainly not advocating for armed resistance against the government, nor am I suggesting that things would go well for anyone who tried, but "you can't win" is just... ignorant of history. The Viet Cong and Al-Qaeda both "won" against the US military, though the costs were astronomical for both them and the civilians caught in the middle.

Your assertion that "you can't win if you fight the government, therefore the only legal use of arms is hunting" is also nonsensical. There are more lawful uses of arms than that. Self defense springs to mind. Sporting purposes that don't involve killing something (e.g. target shooting) is another. Physical security of a building a third.

Comment Re:too bad (Score 2) 312

by Zak3056 (#66061462) Attached to: China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000

Take a hard look at definitions 3 and 4 in your own link to see why you're confidently incorrect. A militia is "well regulated" in the same manner as a clock.

See Federalist 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Certainly the militia is also "regulated" as per your definition, and the constitution provides for that (Art I, Sec 8) and no one is disputing such. But the term "well regulated militia" means something else, and that is "well trained and equipped." And the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, is in support of the goal of having a well regulated militia, and not subordinate to it.

Comment Re:too bad (Score 3, Informative) 312

by Zak3056 (#66061216) Attached to: China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000

When the Constitution was written a "well regulated militia" could mean a group of farmers armed with whatever they had directed by someone with some military experience. It wasn't groups of people in uniform marching in ranks, a lot of them wouldn't even had real shoes.

It certainly did not. A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped, and your untrained farmers with minimal equipment led by former private Smith does not meet that definition. Nonetheless, the right to keep and bear arms itself is reserved to the people--the perceived need for a well regulated militia is the impetus for said right, not the beneficiary of it.

The reason it just says "arms" with no specifications as to what type of weapons is because they didn't envision machine guns and cluster bombs.

Horseshit. The Continental Congress was interested in and had Belton present his repeating flintlock to them. The Puckle gun had been around for more than half a century. The idea that "they didn't envision" that arms would evolve over time is just not supported by history.

Slashdot Top Deals

I had the rare misfortune of being one of the first people to try and implement a PL/1 compiler. -- T. Cheatham

Close