this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
2120 points (99.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6522 readers
4752 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like they did not redefine a word as you say, and invented two new ones instead.
Sounds like they were scared individual states and state militias would gain too much power and wanted a militia the Feds could control with Federal money, with thegoal to have some kind of power over the states and not piss off governors of said states and deter them from FAFO.
Thank you for the links and interesting reads... So it sounds like the Militia Act of 1903 is the source of all these issues, and likely can be argued is unconstitutional from the start since they wanted to redefine a word from the Constitution
I didn't intend to suggest that they redefined the word, I didn't say that as such, but I agree that they may have made official changes to the word (splitting it, as you say) in some fashion.
It does read a bit like a federal power play meant to consolidate power, though the re-framing of the word "Militia" was not subsequently used as a way to undermine the 2nd amendment, as one might suspect if that were the case. One must wonder if the NRA (established in 1871), or another interested party, had any hand in influencing Charles Dick's advancement of this legislation.
To me it reads more as a way to protect the 2nd amendment's "militia" verbiage from scrutiny.