Posted on 05/29/2005 11:43:58 PM PDT by John Filson
I'm not aware of any private armies. Do you have a reference? As for privateers, while they were quasi-military, I don't think they could be put under the heading of "weapon of mass destruction."
The question is open. Dealer records indicate they may have purchased one, but as I recall, none specificaly appeared on the Tresury Dept list of firearms recovered from the ruins (Caveat there were a small number (single digit) of micellaneous unidentified "other rifles" on the list)
Would a private army be unconstitutional?
It might be; however, the constitution would be at odds with what is right, necessary and good
----------------
For academic discussion only
Article 2, Section 2 states: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.
Sorry, I just snorted on myself with this. Cleaned up to highlight this observation. Now back to the propoganda ...
At one time Pinkertons probably had a good approximation of an army, so did some of the cattleman's associtations during the range wars.
The intentions of the framers is clear: They wanted the citizens to be able to throw off the government using force of arms if neccessary.
One need not get into heavier arms than, say, the 5o because there are a hell of a lot more of us than them.
I agree.
And he didn't mention the cost of the ammunition ...
Iran, North Korea, and the father of Pakistan's nuke can and probably will be selling nukes to terrorists. These idiots should direct their energies to nukes, not rifles.
Iran, North Korea, and the father of Pakistan's nuke can and probably will be selling nukes to terrorists. These idiots should direct their energies to nukes, not rifles.
See the point of the Second Amendment didn't have anything to do with preserving police force power; or protecting hunting rights. The Second Amendment is to protect the right of the people to "keep and bear arms".
"Arms." Not limited to rifles; not limited to .22 or .223 rifles; "arms".
The right to challange government force with arms.
Maybe you could come up with some reasonable regulation of the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear arms. Maybe you ought to be required to amend the constitution to do that.
Anything else--protected by the Second Amendment. Period!
Question
Why does the President ask for the Governors written permission when he requests the State Guard?
If the part about the militia were not there one could argue that it was just for personal arms, but it is there.
Stop! Laz is just on edge. He took sumtin wrong, or sumtin ...
A better question would be about state troopers. They are a police force but could also be used as an army.
I was too late. Oh well, carry on.
Article 2, Section 2 states: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.
How cleverly disingenuous of you, papertyger, to omit a critical portion of the relevant text:
Article 2, Section. 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
When not called into federal service, the Militia still exist, and they are not under Presidential command at those times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.