Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
This isn't even a real quote, it's two Mason quotes glued together. The second statement was in context of the British Government's attempts to control the subjects in America.
The first part is the important part related to what was meant by militia: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." This meaning was held in common at the time.
Regardless, Mason's remarks at the debate were against reliance on a standing army (in addition to the risks he thought it posed) in favor of local militias that could be raised when necessary. They would need to be "well regulated" so that states that were called to come to the aid of other states would be sufficiently trained and equipped.
But fast forward a few hundred years and the militias are now really the National Guard, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government.
No, the National Guard is not the militia. The National Guard is the National Guard. The militia, as understood in writing the Constitution was not funded by the federal government. It was The People, not just a select group prepared for duty funded by the federal government.
If you're called up for National Guard duty you don't bring your personal AR-15 in fact you're not even allowed.
How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.
|
It is beyond you because your understanding of the Constitution is not informed by the actual language and meaning used to write the Constitution, but informed by Progressive revisionism--so-called interpretation which is actually a rewriting, a changing, outside of the legal and proper amendment process.
Here is a good explication of the meanings of the words in the 2A contemporaneous to the time it was written. It is a little bit longish, not too much, just very thorough and a really good guide to understanding the 2A.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment
Threaded Mode