undefined | Better HN

0 pointsagarden4y ago0 comments

The overriding concern of the constitution is that the federal government not tromp all over the rights of the States. It would not be reasonable for the constitution to have provisions to secure the right of the federal government to arm its police, but it does seem reasonable to me to have provisions to ensure that the federal government does not interfere with the right of the several States to arm their police.

However, multiple states specify in their constitutions who comprises their militias. In Virginia, for example, it is "composed of the body of the people." In Illinois, "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." Given such constitutional provisions, it seems unreasonable to think that police were in view when speaking of a "well-regulated militia."

0 comments

dragonwriter4y ago

The policing and military functions were, because large permanent standing forces for internal and external security which would inevitably become closed societies with interests divergent from the public were the threat the 2A was to protect against, by providing an alternative that would make them unnecessary.

syshum4y ago

At the time of the constitution most policing was done by a local sheriff that was elected and did not really have a "dept", the sheriff would enlist local volunteers if there needed to be a police action that required more than him and a single deputy.

For this reason the ability to local community members to be armed was required as they needed to defend themselves as well as the local community when called upon by the sheriff.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsagarden4y ago0 comments

0 comments

dragonwriter4y ago

syshum4y ago

For this reason the ability to local community members to be armed was required as they needed to defend themselves as well as the local community when called upon by the sheriff.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse