Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kattracks
Brady makes a case based on "...a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in which the justices said the Second Amendment protects only those gun rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation...of a well-regulated militia."

To illustrate their misuse of that statement take the following illustrations:

In WW2 Britain's home guard (a militia) was to some extent at least armed with firearms sent across the ocean by American gun owners, acting as individuals and contributing their own property to a common defense. (That property has never been returned by the way).

And,
I have two WW2 era training rifles, one American and one British. The US version looks like an '03 springfield and was used to teach marching and drill. The Brit version fills the same needs but also includes a pin-on target, trigger mechanism, and a nifty little forked thingy that pops out and makes a hole in the target...
Meaning?
That in order to sustain a militia, or to train an army, the Brit's needed to explain the most basic elements starting with "bullet (forked thingy) comes out here (muzzle) and will eventually make a hole over here (piece of paper one inch away from the muzzle).

My point?
In the end, reasonable national self defense cannot hinge on a tiny cadre of soldiers and a mass of clueless laborers drafted and trained in skills they were never before allowed to consider...unless you have a close relative at hand and willing to send its own militia into the breach while you figure it out!

Way back in the origins of the (much villified) Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCMC) I believe the idea was that it was NECESSARY to have a significant number of civilians in the community who would be able to demonstrate and train others in the use of military/militia arms should the need arise. So far that need has not arisen, in part because those people are indeed out there.
(All we need to work out now is just how to arm a modern day militia with M-1's)

8 posted on 06/18/2002 6:20:30 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: norton
"(All we need to work out now is just how to arm a modern day militia with M-1's)"

Switzerland seems to have figured it out. They issue the "active militia" the most modern arms (full auto/select fire). The "inactive militia" gets the arms that are one generation older for the asking. This is pretty much what the "original intent" of the Civilian Marksmanship Program was. But who in the Federal government gives a hang about the original intent of ANY law OR the Constitution.

10 posted on 06/18/2002 6:31:00 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson