Well-regulated militias

by **fadedpsychosis** on Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:51 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Thanks for the summary. Not sure what tzor's main point has changed to though.

um.... I think he was using that to say the guard still counts as a militia... y'know, unless they don't

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:09 pm

fadedpsychosis wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Thanks for the summary. Not sure what tzor's main point has changed to though.

um.... I think he was using that to say the guard still counts as a militia... y'know, unless they don't

lol if so, then so what? We'll just have to let tzor unfurl his argument and then refold it.

by **tzor** on Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:17 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:lol if so, then so what? We'll just have to let tzor unfurl his argument and then refold it.

Why do I need to unfurl my argument? I'm not drunk enough to unfurl an argument; especially my own.

I've only been pointing out that at the time of the constitution, the notion of militias was something done by the states, and according to the constitution when called into the service of the federal government was then placed under the President as "Commander in Chief." The right to bear arms in the Constitution was a provision to allow state authority to maintain militias.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:05 pm

tzor wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:lol if so, then so what? We'll just have to let tzor unfurl his argument and then refold it.

Why do I need to unfurl my argument? I'm not drunk enough to unfurl an argument; especially my own.

I've only been pointing out that at the time of the constitution, the notion of militias was something done by the states, and according to the constitution when called into the service of the federal government was then placed under the President as "Commander in Chief." The right to bear arms in the Constitution was a provision to allow state authority to maintain militias.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.