danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #4,301
Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.lol. it is in our Second Amendment. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.Then answer this one.
In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
damn you're one dumb MF. Why don't women have this same right? or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
Again, your argument is an insult.
Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills