Comments by "Ungoogleable o_O" (@oO_ox_O) on "Why wasn’t the Bill of Rights originally in the US Constitution? - James Coll" video.

  1. +Eric Vinton It's not as if they didn't mention "militia" in the constitution itself.
    1
  2. Ryan McClure > The militia is the people. It is? Then explain to me the following parts of the constitution: The Congress shall have Power To […] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; […] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; […]
    1
  3. HalfTangible Most of the Swiss Confederation army is made up of militias, that's because every male of age is asked to conscribe into the army. The people in there are trained and become reservists until old age, which means they are part of the army but not in active duty until they get drafted again (e.g. if there is some war). Because of this they are allowed to keep their army-supplied weapons. This has been the norm for nearly 500 years there. The founding fathers surely knew the Swiss and their conscription system and conscription training was explicitly mentioned in The Federalist Papers. I am not arguing how the Supreme court of the 20th century was interpreting the law, I don't think it was exactly the way some of the founding fathers expected. Now this is not necessary a bad thing (after all the same applies to free speech BTW) but IMHO it's pretty clear. If anything it should the problems of common/case law and all that comes with it (like imprecise laws).
    1
  4. HalfTangible > What do the Swiss have to do with America, Like I said it was somewhat of a role model. After all it was a secular (protestants and Catholics lived peacefully side-by-side) federal republic (no monarch) with democratic elements. Also it was made up of different states which were united in defending themselves against outside foes (except for Napoleon nobody ever really defeated them).
    1
  5. HalfTangible > is there in case the government grows tyrannical again. There were several different reasons. All of this would still be possible if every suitable male of age was allowed to own a gun not for the mere fact of being a citizen but for being part of the militia army.
    1
  6. Grindstone > upon exercising all other rights such as worship and speech Well, there are already some checks on speech and in past there were even more. > since licensing and training requirements always disproportionately affect the poor and minorities Training should be the job of the military.
    1
  7. Grindstone > to somehow mean "applies only to the armed agents of the government". Not armed agents of the government, people fulfilling their duty to the community. > tiny in terms of […] world wide economic and military impact BS.
    1
  8. Grindstone > Further, you believe people OWE a duty to the community? That's what is used to justify taxes and conscription. Are you against both? > What's "BS" is your comparison of two completely different nations. I don't see how any of those differences are relevant. You also don't think that the difference between 18th century's and today's US matters when it comes to the second amendment.
    1