9 votes

Declaration reference to civil power, why is it never brought up?

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Why is this never brought up in discussions of the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to debates over what "militia" means? I see the same tired arguments over and over these days, regardless of the SCOTUS opinion shoring up the modern meaning of the 2nd Amendment, about how the militia means the military or National Guard. I've been trying to frame a response in the terms of this grievance from the Declaration, and I'm not sure how effective it would be.

I have a sinking feeling that not many people have read the Declaration of Independence as adults.

Does anyone have thoughts on this?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

i understand what you are saying about the grievance.

and that is what makes the meaning what it is. I also don't know why people on the gun rights side of the debate don't use that as support for the real meaning.

I understand that the people that don't like the second amendment don't mention the grievance because it would make it harder for them to obfuscate and muddle the true meaning.

then again, I don't understand much of anything the majority of pundits and politicians do. it probably has to do with ulterior motives.

we no longer have the power to outdo our military

but that is what the writers of the constitution wanted us to be able to do.

plus, I think that a well armed citizenry could give the military a pretty hard time. the Iraqi's or Afghani's aren't all that well armed compared to our military, but they sure can give us hell because of the tactical advantages they have in having their soldiers blend in with regular citizens and knowing the local areas better.

i am not so sure

he seems to think that a well regulated militia means that the citizens should be well armed in case they are called up to serve in the army.

I think that a well regulated militia means a military that is kept in check by a well armed citizenry. in other words, if the gov't became tyrannical (like the king)and wanted to use the military to harass the citizens (like the king used the redcoats), the military would have a more difficult time doing that if the citizens had their own arms to fight back and beat the tyrants - like the patriots.

to me it doesn't seem like semantics...it seems like two different meanings. of course, mine being right and spirit's being wrong.