Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary for the security of a free State?
I can see that it once may have been. Especially in the earlier days of the United States, where the reach of government may have been limited and anti-British attitudes high, and before the country had a large permanent military. But I can't see how it could possibly still be relevant today.
The United States military is more than capable of defending the country's interests against foreign foes, and has been doing so for over a century. And I don't see how militias could possibly defend the people if the state turns tyrannical. The state has drones, tanks and bombs. If the state wants to take you out, it will. And if the military refuses to follow the orders of the tyrannical government, then it's going to be the military that overthrows the state, and not the militia.
So given modern circumstances, how can it possibly still be true that a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State?
I can see that it once may have been. Especially in the earlier days of the United States, where the reach of government may have been limited and anti-British attitudes high, and before the country had a large permanent military. But I can't see how it could possibly still be relevant today.
The United States military is more than capable of defending the country's interests against foreign foes, and has been doing so for over a century. And I don't see how militias could possibly defend the people if the state turns tyrannical. The state has drones, tanks and bombs. If the state wants to take you out, it will. And if the military refuses to follow the orders of the tyrannical government, then it's going to be the military that overthrows the state, and not the militia.
So given modern circumstances, how can it possibly still be true that a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2nnJGvj
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire