|
| Authored by: Charles888 on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 02:02 PM EST |
First, thanks for bringing my
attention to the VA constitution. I
never looked
at it before, but it
adds some extra historical context.
It is an interesting
debate, and
although I strongly disagree with
you, I enjoyed reading your
point of
view. This is a debate I never
engaged in before, but I have
finally become fed up with our gun
culture and gun violence, specially
after
the CT event.
I think the VA condition is much
stronger in defining what
militia
is, and how it is to behave:
SEC. 13. That a
well-
regulated militia, composed of the
body of the people, trained to arms,
is the proper, natural, and safe
defence of a free State; that
standing
armies, in time of peace,
should be avoided, as dangerous to
liberty; and that
in all cases the
military should be under strict
subordination to, and
governed by,
the civil power.
Later in the VA constitution, it
goes on defining:
The present militia
officers shall be
continued, and
vacancies supplied by appointment of
the Governor, with the
advice of the
Privy Council, on recommendations
from the respective County
Courts;
but the Governor and Council shall
have a power of suspending any
officer, and ordering a Court
Martial, on complaint of
misbehaviour or
inability, or to
supply vacancies of officers,
happening when in actual
service.
The Governor may embody the militia,
with the advice of the Privy
Council; and when embodied, shall
alone have the direction of the
militia,
under the laws of the
country.
This is more akin to States
National
Guards, than personal ownership of
weapons.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
