Convention of States: Good or Bad?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2017, 01:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interestingly enough, that interpretation is less than a decade old. Prior to the DC case, the Second was interpreted to mean each individual has the right to take up arms in defense of the nation (join the military).

Eh, the people who tried to interpret it that way for a period of time were the people who don't like the 2nd Amendment.

When it was made, the "militia" was a guy riding out to the various farms and saying "hey, grab your rifles" and they'd all gather together. Bam, your militia. Basically a bunch of random guys with guns. They had no uniforms. So their ideas of "well regulated" is quite different than modern day. They wore whatever they owned, carried their own personal weapons, "trained" themselves like maybe 2-4 times a year.

Regardless, the "right of the people to KEEP and bear arms" was always pretty clearly stated.

So I would argue the decade old interpretation is actually much older than that, because it was the original interpretation. People only changed it when they wanted to try to start disarming the populace. Much like the British did at the start of the Revolutionary War, which is why the Amendment existed in the first place, and was important enough that they felt the need to make it the 2nd on their list.

The same as when people say "the Founding Fathers expected people to have muskets" yet that was the exact same rifle the military had, and civilian merchant ships would have cannons. (Not that I am saying I need a cannon, for anyone who wants to only chip in with "oh, then we should all have nukes too, derp da derp?")

The point is that it had nothing to do with joining the military, and all to do with being able to maintaining a state free from oppression, regardless if that is external or internal as the British were both during that time.


- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

If this convention happened, I would want it to be on the 4th. I still have no idea how civil forfeiture ISN'T Unconstitutional.

The 10th would be pretty good, too, considering how somehow we've gotten reversed on it. It's supposed to be the Federal Government only has the power that the States give it, but we've arrived at a point where the Federal Government is making all the choices on what a State can and can't do now.