RE: "Militia", what that meant then.
October 4, 2017 at 11:48 am
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2017 at 11:49 am by Whateverist.)
(October 4, 2017 at 11:03 am)Khemikal Wrote: The crown also appealed to the practicality of their model. They insisted that the objections of the rebellious colonists were unfounded..and truth be told, they were.
Nevertheless, a small portion of those colonists went all pewpewpew and then argued, as the crown had argued, that there was no reason to ever go pewpewpew on them.
You'd think that they (and now you) imagine that they'd solved the problem of tyranny forever. I mean, obviously, when subject to tyranny, the best way to remedy it...is a vote......it's not like your fellow subjects might vote in favor of the tyrant or anything.........
Still small bands of pewpew'ers going off whenever they got pissed off doesn't seem like anything I'd support.
A big difference between then and now is that each colony had some degree of self rule. The only beef was with the oversight insisted upon by the king. So each colony had a representative body which could meet with the others and come to consensus on what to do about the king.
We don't have that. All we have are regional and national representative bodies - which already hold the power formerly represented by that king. Pretty different situation.
I find it absurd to interpret the second amendment as sanctioning insurrection. And permitting the holding of guns for that reason is just nutty. An endless escalation of violence is not a great solution to any problem, as is thinking that any ad hoc band of insurrectionists would represent your interests better than the current rule of law.