View Single Post
Old 12-09-2015, 04:48 PM   #8
anderson
Awfully Cavalier
 
anderson's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dappertutto, come un Capo
Posts: 28,341
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $630860
My Mood


anderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud of
anderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud of
I have my info from analysis of founding father penned texts, not from whichever source you intimate I got it from.
Contrary to popular opinion, I actually do study these things some. And to say that it is a modern view (the collective rights view) is nonsensical. It's been part of the judicial view since the late 1800's and early 1900's, based on founding father correspondance, etc.

Furthermore I think it's also prudent to observe the second amendment in the light of the legal view of self-defense. This view has changed substantially since the time of the founding fathers; where once you had to demonstrate necessity to ward off a lethal attack in order to defend yourself with lethal force, that view has now been replaced with a reasonable belief that a lethal attack is about to happen. Congruent with that change is the doctrine of self-defense as it relates to being armed.

Short and the long is that you won't be able to make a bulletproof (forgive the term) argument for the militia meaning everyone. It's simply not possible and scholars much brighter than both of us combined have spent the past 150 years trying to understand the meaning. There are valid arguments on both sides and you find some compelling and I others.
To me it makes little sense to subscribe to the view that everyone's the militia without further quantifiers, though, since we did have an organized militia at the time and several of the founding fathers used that organization to avoid having to establish a standing army. You'll remember that it wasn't until much later and not without much quarreling we even had a navy.
__________________
  anderson is offline Reply With Quote