GoForSmoke:
The Army that I served in and left coming on 40 years ago could easily pound rifle-armed "militias" down into the bedrock.
I was only trying to explain what it means. I never said it is relevant to today's reality.
And in an attempt to appease @TollpuddleSartre it probably would have had little practical relevance in Nazi Germany even though that was about 90 years ago.
One wonders if it even had practical relevance when it was written - or was it just political weasel words to keep some clique onside?
All of which leads me to think it could usefully be repealed now.
...R
Hitler as Chancellor made the Brown Shirts as a populist organization under his direction. Then he made the Black Shirts and then had the Black Shirts murder the Brown Shirts who lost the mean dog show, what an embarrassment, fired! The Black Shirts became the SS.
GoForSmoke:
Hitler as Chancellor made the Brown Shirts as a populist organization under his direction. Then he made the Black Shirts and then had the Black Shirts murder the Brown Shirts who lost the mean dog show, what an embarrassment, fired! The Black Shirts became the SS.
And the relevance to the US Constitution is ... ?
...R
Robin2:
And the relevance to the US Constitution is ... ?...R
I think Hitler is quite relevant. After WWI Germany was a democracy and there were lots of weapons kicking about. Hitler managed to get control of an organised, uniformed, armed, militia the "Brownshirts" and he attempted to gain control of the country in a putsch. He failed and ended up in jail.
He then made a comeback but instead of attempting a revolution from below he took control of the levers of power from above. Once he had control of the army the country was his.
I think the American founding fathers favoured a country with lots of citizens militias that would unify in times of national threat rather than a large standing army. Somebody unsavory might take control of a militia but they could not take over the country (just as Hitler failed), but if somebody took over a standing army the country was theirs (again just like Hitler).
Now there is the example in the US of one man, who many regard as unstable, having an enormous amount of power, largely unchecked, in his hands.
Robin2:
And the relevance to the US Constitution is ... ?...R
It's relevant to the Brown Shirts being called the kind of militia referred to in the relevant 2nd Amendment of that Constitution.
Please keep up?
GoForSmoke:
It's relevant to the Brown Shirts being called the kind of militia referred to in the relevant 2nd Amendment of that Constitution.
Please keep up?
IMHO you are interpreting too narrowly the word "militia" as used in the Constitution. I think it was intended to mean what we nowadays call "the armed forces".
And (referring to Reply #44) it is certainly arguable that the Constitution means "militias that would unify in times of national threat rather than a large standing army". Indeed I think that is the only alternative logical interpretation.
But the references in Reply #5 suggest to me that the intention was to be able to oppose a militia under the control of a rogue President (I'm assuming they had already decided that the President would be commander-in-chief).
...R
Robin2:
IMHO you are interpreting too narrowly the word "militia" as used in the Constitution. I think it was intended to mean what we nowadays call "the armed forces"....
Well we disagree 
Assuming this is accurate;
"Ultimately, Hamilton argues, the militia will be used to defend a "neighboring State" from a "common enemy" or to "guard the republic against the violence of faction and sedition". By its nature, the militia will not be easy for the federal government to abuse, and will instead act as a check on tyranny".
"The kind of involvement the federal government would have over the militias would be to call them for aid in the case that the standing military showed to be a threat to the civil liberties of the people".
"Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections".
So back in 1788 I think they had a clear view that there should be a relatively small standing army or "armed forces", hopefully under the control of the Federal Governement, but quite distinct militias under control of the states who were the backstop against tyrany. Of course saying in 1700s that somebody has the inalienable right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia is very different from saying every man and his dog has an individual right to the modern firepower now available.
ardly:
Of course saying in 1700s that somebody has the inalienable right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia is very different from saying every man and his dog has an individual right to the modern firepower now available.
Let's agree on that.
...R
Robin2:
IMHO you are interpreting too narrowly the word "militia" as used in the Constitution. I think it was intended to mean what we nowadays call "the armed forces".And (referring to Reply #44) it is certainly arguable that the Constitution means "militias that would unify in times of national threat rather than a large standing army". Indeed I think that is the only alternative logical interpretation.
But the references in Reply #5 suggest to me that the intention was to be able to oppose a militia under the control of a rogue President (I'm assuming they had already decided that the President would be commander-in-chief).
...R
The Army is owned by the government, the citizen's militia is not as the threat may be government usurpation.
The country did not keep or seek to keep a large standing Army.
The Army chain of command leads to the President, the citizen's militia does not. Refer to the 2nd Amendment as to why.
The National Guard is also not the citizen's militia.
The amendment was made in the days when a citizen's militia could stand and fight contemporary military units with almost equal weapons. Now it might as well be spears vs tanks but as an excuse to gun-up it's got plenty of retard-appeal.
ardly:
...
Now there is the example in the US of one man, who many regard as unstable, having an enormous amount of power, largely unchecked, in his hands.
There's checks. Big one coming up in November.
ChrisTenone:
There's checks. Big one coming up in November.
That won't work if a lunatic in charge reckons he has the military support to tough it out and ignore the ballot box.
To my mind the great appeal of democracy is not so much that you can choose your representative but that s/he will go away quietly when their time is up.
...R
That's for people who play by rules.
We have a large population of IDIOTS who have a 3-year-old-child's view of the world and they've found matches.
I never fail to be amazed that I am the only sensible person and the rest of the population are idiots
...R
Robin2:
I never fail to be amazed that I am the only sensible person and the rest of the population are idiots
Careful, Robin.
The insane often claim that they are the only sane person and the rest of the population are insane.
Um, Robin ... you forgot to say "present company accepted (wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)" Then you wouldn't be insane.
Robin2:
I never fail to be amazed that I am the only sensible person and the rest of the population are idiots...R
Join the US Army. You won't be amazed anymore, you will expect it.