Account Share

 

Thread by @GregWest_HALOJM: "The arms at the time of the Constitution were the equivalent of what government arms were. This is indisputable. Thinking the Founders could […]"

12 tweets, 2 min read
The arms at the time of the Constitution were the equivalent of what government arms were. This is indisputable. Thinking the Founders could not foresee that arms would change over time is ludicrous because there had already been changes during their lifetimes.
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms that are equal in capability of current arms. Arms refer to individual arms, rifles and pistols, which is why things like cannons were not listed as part of the amendment.
The well regulated militia refers to the minute men of the time, the equivalent of what we call the National Guard today, but also for the unregulated militia which by US law is any male between the age of 17-45.
The unregulated militia, those able bodied men between 17-45, have been called to our nation's defense numerous times throughout our history from the War of 1812 through WWII.
The Second Amendment was also established so families and communities could protect themselves against internal or external threats. This is because government is not able to have police officers on every corner or standing guard outside every home. Your reaction time is faster.
While some people will say, "yes, but we haven't had need to call out the militia at all since WWII when there fears of Japan invading Alaska or part of the west coast." Well, a lot of people probably had that though after every other conflict, but at some point it may be needed.
When Pancho Villa launched raids into the US, then President Woodrow Wilson called up 150,000 militia to pursue Villa. People will often say well, that was then, Mexico is our ally now. Japan was our ally in WWI, but became our enemy in WWII.
There is nothing in the Second Amendment stating that the civilian populace will be restricted to the arms of the previous generation of arms. If that were the case no civilians would be own anything more potent than a bow and arrow. Arms does not include crew served weapons.
Chipping away any of the Bill of Rights is a very idea. Retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens in his op-ed also criticized the First Amendment which shows it is more than just a slippery slope, it's a catastrophic cliff!
Be very careful of who's Constitutional rights you want to trample today, because it may very well be your rights that get trampled next if you keep chipping away different sections of the Bill of Rights and other amendments. Liberals harp on amendments can be repealed. DANGEROUS
that should say "very bad idea"
There is also a reason why the Founders made it so difficult to repeal a Constitutional Amendment. It was to prevent knee jerk reactions by governmental officials from removing protections our citizens are entitled to in each amendment.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.
This content can be removed from Twitter at anytime, get a PDF archive by mail!
This is a Premium feature, you will be asked to pay $30.00/year
for a one year Premium membership with unlimited archiving.
Don't miss anything from @GregWest_HALOJM,
subscribe and get alerts when a new unroll is available!
Did Thread Reader help you today?
Support me: I'm a solo developer! Read more about the story
Become a 💎 Premium member ($30.00/year) and get exclusive features!
Too expensive?
Make a small donation instead. Buy me a coffee ($5) or help for the server cost ($10):
Donate with 😘 Paypal or  Become a Patron 😍 on Patreon.com
Trending hashtags
Did Thread Reader help you today?
Support me: I'm a solo developer! Read more about the story
Become a 💎 Premium member ($30.00/year) and get exclusive features!
Too expensive?
Make a small donation instead. Buy me a coffee ($5) or help for the server cost ($10):
Donate with 😘 Paypal or  Become a Patron 😍 on Patreon.com