Re: Re: Breaking News
By: Weatherman to Tracker1 on Wed May 05 2021 04:35 pm
> -=> Tracker1 wrote to Dr. What <=-
>
> >> I was thinking more along the lines of a lot of people like to hunt
> >> wildlife and need guns to do so.
>
> > Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to
resis
> > tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment a
way.
> Tr> Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is compl
etely
> Tr> clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common fire
arm of
> Tr> the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but fo
r comm
> Tr> defense. I don't think anyone involved in
> Tr> the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it
> Tr> to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has
> Tr> that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
>
> Let us also not forget what the Founding Fathers thought about permanent, sta
nding
> armies. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with
[a
> people's] freedomö and ôcompletely adverseö to the ôspirit
> of this country.ö
>
> Pretty smart guys, those Founding Fathers. They were able to see 200 years i
nto th
> future.
>
> ... The number you have dialed...Nine-one-one...has been changed.
Standing armies used to be a rarity.
In the middle ages, standing armies sucked, because people in an army does not g
row
crops and does nothing useful for the most part. Wars in the middle ages sucked
because, in addition to the head-chopping going on, there was no people harvesti
ng
grain, and the factions involved took heavy loses if just for that.
This is the reason why nobles had no standing armies. You built one when you nee
ded it
_only_.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
|
