Posted by Bob Janova at 1:08pm Jun 29 '10The reasons behind the first are still valid today; the reasons behind the second aren't. You're not in danger of being invaded or re-taken over by the British, and even if you were, an armed civilian populace would be of zero use against a modern army anyway. And there's a far more effective state law enforcement, too, though it's fairly clear from the wording that the intent is to preserve the 'security of a free State' not individual people.
Legally, they are at the same level, but in terms of relevance to the modern day they are not.
Legally, they are at the same level, but in terms of relevance to the modern day they are not.
There is a difference - Bob Janova