See, the thing that raises my eyebrows is the second amendment saying, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Grammatically speaking, the meat and potatoes of this sentence is "The right of the people shall not be infringed." Granted, this amendment has been interpreted to the extremes, but it seems counterintuitive that this would imply the rights of militias to keep and bear arms may be infringed.
I would counter that "well regulated" would come into play in an argument about this particular statute, since it seems to target ad hoc congregations of rednecks from being able to claim the same rights and priveleges as established organizations, like, say, the Red Cross.
I didn't mean that the Red Cross is a militia; merely that it is an organization with certain legal rights and priveleges.
The statute also allows for "troops of the United States" ... according to Wiki, the founder of the MMC was a former member of the Air Force. I suppose one could make the case that "former" is relevant, but I wouldn't unless I was out of other rhetorical options.
Reply
Grammatically speaking, the meat and potatoes of this sentence is "The right of the people shall not be infringed." Granted, this amendment has been interpreted to the extremes, but it seems counterintuitive that this would imply the rights of militias to keep and bear arms may be infringed.
Reply
Reply
And I'd like to point out that the Michigan Militia is pretty much just a congregation of rednecks.
Reply
The statute also allows for "troops of the United States" ... according to Wiki, the founder of the MMC was a former member of the Air Force. I suppose one could make the case that "former" is relevant, but I wouldn't unless I was out of other rhetorical options.
Reply
Leave a comment