Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
5. Close. It's to ensure the people could provide their own arms
Sat Oct 7, 2017, 02:17 PM
Oct 2017

To fill their right and duty to serve in the effective militias. That way the people cannot be disarmed, which would destroy the militias - the recourse being the arm of tyrants, huge standing armies.

The Govt already had their powers (not rights) over the state militias (which already existed and were well defined) as listed in s1/8 in the constitution.

ETA: on the religious exemption clause in the article which became the 2nd...

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

E Gerry

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Another Conservative Hypocrisy [View all] ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 OP
2nd greeny2323 Oct 2017 #1
Close. It's to ensure the people could provide their own arms jmg257 Oct 2017 #5
Why does the government sarisataka Oct 2017 #7
They couldnt comprehend the complete reliance jmg257 Oct 2017 #2
It's not their originalism that's admired ProudLib72 Oct 2017 #3
See My Post 9 ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 #10
Ah, but the founders intended arms to refer to whatever weapons were available unblock Oct 2017 #4
That's Not What Scalia Claimed ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 #8
That's my point unblock Oct 2017 #13
Then We Agree Completely! ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 #16
Original Intent shadowmayor Oct 2017 #6
Exactly My Point! ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 #9
Forgive my ignorance, but... madamesilverspurs Oct 2017 #11
You Have ZERO Ignorance!!!! ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 #12
IDIOCY is my vote Angry Dragon Oct 2017 #14
Personally, I Think It's Both ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 #15
you are more correct than myself Angry Dragon Oct 2017 #18
Original intent people ignore the original intent of the whole Constitution Kablooie Oct 2017 #17
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Another Conservative Hypo...»Reply #5