• blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    So if training isn’t necessary to be considered a member of a militia, and organization can mean any amount of organization at all, then you are using “militia” to mean “people.” If that is what you think they were saying, then why would they use the word “militia” at all?

    • FluorideMind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I mean it’s really how far you want to take samantics.

      I take the second to mean every person has the right to form into groups to protect themselves and their own from foreign and domestic threats. Others disagree and that’s part of the whole debate about the second.

      What does it mean to you?

      • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It means absent a unified millitary that the states have the right to assemble militias for the common defense of american citizens within their borders,

        Because they didn’t have a unified military or a modern model of civilian policing yet back then.

        That’s also why the third amendment is worded the way it is, it’s supposed to mean you can’t make a city pay for its own occupation by peace keeping forces, IE cops most of the time, because back then cops and the militia were one in the same.

          • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah, and that was proven to be ludicrous once Connecticut and Pennsylvania started shooting at each other over who’s stuff was who’s