Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Chudungus
I'm gonna go against the grain and say he is sorta and mostly right, but doesn't know it. However he is also wrong because the 2nd was added to AMEND that other stuff in original body of Constitution about "militia".
|
No, I have to disagree and say he is mostly wrong. His overall interpretation of the second amendment is that it allows (only) the governmnet to give guns to the militia. See minute 1:34 to 1:38 where he says "
that means you get your militia arms from the government. You don't buy 'em yourself."
In what world is this "sorta and mostly right"?? He is basically describing Breyer's dissent in Heller where the 2A is a collective right only, not an individual right.
Obviously, he completely ignores the operative clause giving the People (not the militia) the right to keep and bear arms without infringement and he flat out says that people shouldn't be able to buy their own 'militia arms'. His basic claim is that the Article 1 militia clause (in the body of the Constitution) limits the People's rights under the 2A, instead of the other way around (the 2A limiting what Congress can do to infringe on individual rights, like almost every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights).
MSNBC is such trash ... worse than CNN in some ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Chudungus
Thus one purpose of 2nd is to outlaw any Proxy Wars and if US Govt leaders want a war they must start with "our boys" going off to die, because while Proxy always sounds good it makes war too easy to start.
|
What? Do you have a cite for this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Chudungus
Another big problem was unpopular rulers hiring mercs using the treasury to stay in power and oppress the population in ways a local militia might balk at. Accepting non-citizens for military service for (to them) high pay and future citizenship and other big benefits creates a group of people in some foreign land that can't be controlled who have their own reasons for USA to get into some war and need troops. So again the 2nd outlaws any non-citizens from getting any US Govt paid for weapons or involvement in military ops, even if that again sounds like "a good idea at the time", its a bad practice.
|
What? Do you have a cite for this?
Foreign nationals serve in the military without any hinderance from the 2nd Amendment ... seriously this one doesn't make any sense at all as to what the 2A says or does.