|
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 07:51 PM by Callisto32
Actually, the Second Amendment should be used to De-federalize the National Guard. Posted by WA98070
The National Guard is being abused by this administration.
Agreed, each state should have their own military force (and their own posse comitatus acts) that are in no way beholden to the federal government and limited by charter to purely defensive actions, able to be activated only in the face of foreign invasion, ideally.
However, the world militia has several different meanings and thus can cause some problems.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
mi·li·tia n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Websters Revised:
1. In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
and finally, the venerable Dictionary.com
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
As you can see, this can quickly deteriorate into a game of semantics.
The easy way out seems to be that the amendment protects the rights of both the literal "militia" and the citizenry acting as a "militia" due to the bit about "the right of the people" and given that "the people" nowhere else is interpreted as a collective right. Unfortunately, this interpretation is unlikely to win many supporters.
My question is this: Can something be obsolete, before we are even sure how it works in the first place?
|