posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by ahyaprobly
Yeah, people trying to get something for nothing or those who snoozed their way through history class. Firearm ownership, if anybody took the time to
read the militia acts, is about defense of the community in which one lives.
What people fail to recognize is that in 1776 one of the main reasons the Empire imposed taxes was to pay for the defense of the colonies. In a time
when the frontier could be attacked by pirates, indians, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, or whatever the Crown was putting a lot of money into
The colonies would rather keep their money and decided to go forward with their own defense, and began mustering in a fyrd type system. So why
continue to pay the tax when you're handling your own defense?
The final straw was when the British ordered that the militia armory and magazine be captured at Lexington and Concord.
In 1787 this notion of community oriented self-defense along with the isolation that was the American frontier put forward the the states themselves
could decide what's best. The Army, per Constitution, can only be funded for two years.
To make this more profound 40-something states have a bear arms section of their state constitution, which trickles into the right of the individual
to possess arms. Again, the Feds yielded to the States and the States make up their own rules to constitute whatever is a militia; regardless of how
loose they want to play it.
The problem is the Federal government is attempting to dictate to the states what is acceptable in their community. The charge is, not by force of
morality, but using measures such as the ICC and excise taxes to limit the sale and purchase of such weapons (passing a law against existing weapons
would violate the ex post facto part of the Const.). The states nurse at the tit of the Federal government and do not stand up for the traditions or
interests of the states themselves, which is the right of the individual.