It never sat well with me, the argument that "yeah, theres the right to bear arms, because of the militia, and the "the national gaurd" is the militia now, so you really can't complain when we start restricting the weapons you can have."
Which to me sounds exactly like "yeah, you have a free press. . . PBS and NPR are your free press, so you really can't complain when we start restricting what the washington post prints."
It makes sense that, everyone (including Lee) has the right to bear arms. Also everyone has the right to assemble. When you assemble with others bearing arms, congradulations, you are now a militia.
Personally I would also like to add "By being in a militia, you now accept the fact that you can be seen as a paramilitary force and the actions you do can envoke the response of a proffesional military, tread lightly and don't do anything stupid."
Regards,
Justin Kelly
Off Topic » in reply to I guess the definition of "militia" can be extended to include congressmen?
Better than reducing the definition of Militia
The whole thread (19 posts)
- I guess the definition of "militia" can be extended to include congressmen?
- Better than reducing the definition of Militia
- On the other hand, I'd bet half a dozen guys with boxcutters wouldn't be taking over the plane he's on. ;) (n/t)
- cursed html
