[SATLUG] OT: Walmart / Right-Left Paradigm
brad at shub-internet.org
Tue Nov 6 23:47:49 CST 2007
On 11/6/07, pixelnate wrote:
>> and.. sorry....
>> Not even a literal Second ammendment affords the right to an uzi... just as
>> the context as to what constit
> Ask yourself, what enemy would a well regulated militia be defending the
> republic against, exactly? If you come up with the right answer on that
> one you would understand the need for exactly the thing you say there
> are no rights for.
The original purpose for the well regulated militia was to defend the
people against tyrants. They were armed with the best individual
military weapons available at the time (the same weapons were used
for hunting animals as well as people), and the larger-scale weapons
(e.g., cannons, capital ships, etc...) were bought by and through
governments, although they were maintained and operated by the well
Note that the well regulated militia was only called into format at a
time of war, otherwise they were basically just normal people, like
you or me. There were no standing armies at the time -- they were
considered to be tools of the tyrants, and the founding fathers were
well aware of this fact.
So, warp into the 21st century. If we are still to have a well
regulated militia, who would it be? The closest equivalent would be
the various military reserve organizations, but we'd have to get rid
of the standing army/navy/air force/marines, etc.... You'd have a
rotation system where some people were called to active duty in order
to maintain a minimal readiness capability as well as to keep the
weapons stores secure, but that's it.
Oh, and these people would still be armed with the best available
militarily significant weapons. Since the well regulated militia
should be comprised of each and every able-bodied citizen of the
country, that means everyone would not only have the right to have
and carry Uzis or other submachine guns, you'd have the
responsibility to use them appropriately.
Think about the mandatory military service programs in use by various
other countries around the world, especially countries like
Switzerland or Israel. Same deal here, just on a larger scale.
So, what kind of tyrants would they be defending us against? Well,
it would be the tyrants that supposedly govern us, as well as those
tyrants in other countries who would impose their will upon us.
In my view, we've got more than a few tyrants sitting in the White
House right now, and I'm definitely feeling the need to have someone
stand up in my defense against them -- companies like AT&T sure as
hell ain't gonna do it.
Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org>
LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>
More information about the SATLUG