7 ms·

Then why was the militia mentioned at all? For example, the 1st Amendment does not attempt to lay out some non-exclusive examples of why the rights in the 1st

• vel0city 26d ago
  > I think ignoring phrases in the US Constitution to fit a narrative without any consideration isn't a recipe for good governance Like those who ignore "the right of the people"? Or is it OK to ignore that phrase? Seems like a pretty critical part to ignore. I'm not one to ignore the significance of the "well-regulated militia" part, it's also a good point to understand the meaning of what this meant. It seems the whole point of people being armed was to ensure there was an armed populace able to rally as a useful and well-equipped (as a more historical reading of "well-regulated" would say) militia. The militia not being a standing army by a central government, but the ability for the people to come together effectively. One could make an argument it's no longer relevant compared to modern technology. After all, what's an AR-15 going to do compared to a predator drone, a tomahawk missile, an Abrams tank, etc. But in this age where cheap drones are making multi-billion dollar warships worthless and things like cryptography and AI being considered a munition it seems more relevant than ever.