Confucy, do you really think this ?

JR · 09-11-2003

Ok Wig, Sarretah,

I just read United States v. Miller again. I understand a lot of the argument.

BUT - the purpose of a militia as the court stated in that case is...

"that it was composed of 'civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws"

how can the argument then be that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms to protect yourself from the potential "tyranny of the government" if the very purpose of the militia is to enforce the law and will of the government?

09-11-2003	#11
JR Members The global leader in pay-per-view AEBN Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: in my chair Posts: 3,320	Ok Wig, Sarretah, I just read United States v. Miller again. I understand a lot of the argument. BUT - the purpose of a militia as the court stated in that case is... "that it was composed of 'civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws" how can the argument then be that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms to protect yourself from the potential "tyranny of the government" if the very purpose of the militia is to enforce the law and will of the government? __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode