Chief Arrowhead
03-09-2013, 03:27 AM
Technology advances have always been a part of the military, accompanied by relative moral anguish. What is right by humanity v. right by war? Armor? I recall English Archers being extremely deadly compared to a running rugby scrum on a cleared field - minus goalposts. Was that fair? Is their a moral equivalency?
But you are confusing the issue. Suppose the King, whichever one, decided that it was right to use the Archers against English citizens .. provided he deemed them an imminent threat to his regime.
That is what our constitution was designed to protect the citizens from. Absolutely unique for its time and worth protecting. For the first time a sitting President, who by the way pledged an oath to protect and defend said constitution, has decided that ... naaah, we'll just toss out this piece of paper written by old white men, after all I have my own regime to protect.
Which might give you a clue as to why the right to bear arms is also included in the constitution and some view as sacred to the existence of our country.
But you are confusing the issue. Suppose the King, whichever one, decided that it was right to use the Archers against English citizens .. provided he deemed them an imminent threat to his regime.
That is what our constitution was designed to protect the citizens from. Absolutely unique for its time and worth protecting. For the first time a sitting President, who by the way pledged an oath to protect and defend said constitution, has decided that ... naaah, we'll just toss out this piece of paper written by old white men, after all I have my own regime to protect.
Which might give you a clue as to why the right to bear arms is also included in the constitution and some view as sacred to the existence of our country.