I want to talk about an issue that has been staring me in the face, but it seems no one else sees it. First off I would like to provide the full text
of both the 2nd and 5th amendments.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There seem to be many people arguing that the Militia should be any able bodied person over a certain age, etc. according to the 2nd. I tend to agree
with that however what really upsets me is a provision in the 5th amendment.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime....except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
Considering we are in the neverending war on terror anyone that is part of a Militia can be held acountable for infamous crimes. If we use the
definition of militia from above then that would be pretty much anyone with a firearm. It seems to me like that is a slippery slope. I really do not
like where this is going. I wanted to get this information out there and see what the rest of you think.
I will be pretty busy over the next couple days, but I wanted to get this out there and will reply to as many questions as I can, time permitting.
Thank you all for your replies.
edit on 27-12-2012 by subject1145 because: (no reason given)