Quote:
Originally Posted by Kptlt. Neuerburg
The problem with the 2nd Amendment is it became a moot point after the United States had a standing army. The whole purpose of even having militias was at the time of the American Revolution there was no standing army and the majority of the Continental Army was until the latter years of the war largely made up of said militias. As I've pointed out before as well when the Constitution was written the 2nd Amendment made sense because one the US was at that time surrounded by three of the world powers i.e France, Great Britain and Spain all of whom had well trained standing armies, two lots of really pissed of Native Americans who where hostile to settlers invading their ancestral territory, and three they where using smoothbore muzzle loading flintlock muskets and pistols (sorry the Kentucky Long-rifle was really a musket with a rifled barrel) that could at best get off two to three rounds a minute depending on the skill of the individual soldier.
|
Just a quick FYI, when you declare something as being ‘moot’. You are saying it is still open for debate or discussion.
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .
So continuing on with the debate of militias.
The power of the state government to legislate militias existed
prior to the formation of the Constitution. Though the militia clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army neither does it remove the States power to raise a militia.
I don’t know anything about Kentucky long rifles I’m from Wisconsin.
And when I speak of Militias I’m referring to State organized militias or a SDF. Not the private ones and those other loose cannons.