Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

It is not the fault of myself that the united states as a whole is such a mess that the international community mocks it daily.

 

It is if you are an avid supporter of the NRA, the GOP and your beloved BLOTUS!

 

If it leads to the population of the united states being reduced to more manageable levels, what is ultimately the harm to be found in such? Let the population of the united states continue killing itself off in large percentages each year. Eventually it will solve its own problems.

 

We could require convicted felons to have a large F tattooed to the top of their right/left hand (their choice).
We could require those adjudicated mentally infirm or involuntarily committed to have a large 5150 tattooed to their right/left hand (their choice)
We could require those dishonorably discharged from the military to have a large DD tattooed to their right/left hand (their choice)
We could require those convicted of drug use to have a large DU tattooed to their right/left hand (their choice)
(etc)

 

As a life member of the NRA I really wish the organization was as powerful as you like to indicate.

 

Callous disregard for human life appears to be a defining characteristic of those obsessed with firearms.

 

The greater the percentage of the population that successfully ends its own existence, overall the better off everyone will be in the long run.

Pray tell. What is it about the population of the united states that is so worthwhile protecting at all costs? Why does it matter if tens of thousands are dying each year from any number of methods and/or implements? Why are they not fit to simply ignore, leave to their own devices, and let them suffer the consequences of their actions? Perhaps if they were not so overpopulated, they would not be facing the problems they currently have to deal with.

 

Someone who promotes suicide as a viable option on a large scale has lost any ability to debate rationally. Dismiss him....it really is the only choice

 

If someone truly wishes to end their own existence, that is ultimately their decision to make, and their wishes should be respected. The only other alternative is asserting that the state owns the lives of individuals, reducing them to nothing more than mere property, and possesses the valid authority to dictate that they must continue living.

 

Your derailing of your own thread says volumes!

 

That is certainly a red flag that there is no longer even a tenuous wisp of any remote semblance of a connection to reality still remaining.

 

The Founding Fathers intended the militia to be an alternative to a standing army. The National Guard is part of a standing army.

The Second Amendment also specifies that militiamen have the right to keep their weapons. National Guardsmen have to leave their weapons locked up on base.

So the National Guard is not in any way the militia as far as constitutional rights are concerned.

Since the National Guard does not count as the militia, yes in fact the US government has stopped having a militia for people to join.

If you are referring to dangerous people, the NRA doesn't oppose this.

If your term "mentally unbalanced" refers to people who are not dangerous, they have the right to have guns.

 

Nonsense. A lot of people would be willing to join a militia if the government were to set one up.

 

You will impose no such limitations on militiamen. The Second Amendment forbids it.

The Second Amendment says that you will do no such thing. If you are referring to militiamen, they have the right to have real infantry weapons.

If you are referring to anyone who is not in the militia, you need to justify restrictions with a compelling government interest, and you can't be so restrictive that you impede self defense.

 

In accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, the Congress has complete power with regards to the arms of the militia. If Congress says 3 round bolt action rifle, that's what the militia is limited to.

In contrast, there is no enumerated power in the Constitution or BoR to allow Congress to restrict the arms of the citizens at all.

 

The Second Amendment supersedes that and ensures that militiamen have the right to have adequate military arms even if Congress tries to prevent it.

I agree.

 

The Second doesn't address protecting the arms of the Militia at all, and in any case Congress could simply limit the militia to 2 members per state. The Second cannot protect the militia from the federal government. That's why the arms of the people are protected.

 

The Founding Fathers were very clear that they wanted the Second Amendment to ensure that militiamen had adequate arms.

That would not be a real militia. That would violate the first half of the Second Amendment, which requires the government to have a real militia.

It's more that by protecting the arms of the people, they protect the militia, as the militia is composed of the people.

 

And that can only happen by protecting the arms of the People. Congress could simply federalize any militia and disarm them, or disband them, or require them to use inadequate arms under the powers granted in Article 1, Section 8. The federal government could federalize the entire militia, muster them to federal bases and require them to exchange their M4s for M1 Carbines or M1903 rifles, and it would be perfectly legal.

I don't see a requirement that the government has to have a real militia, only that it's the best form of defense. Since Congress and Congress alone decides what the organization of the militia is, they have the power to determine what a real militia consists of.

The militia only consists of who the Congress says is in it; traditionally, it's been all free men age 18-45, but it doesn't have to be. The people consist of 50% women, but by law the women aren't in the unorganized militia. There are about 450,000 National Guardsmen and 61 million men age 18-45 in the US, which is just a small percentage of the People.

 

It wouldn't be legal. The Second Amendment strips them of the power to do this.

It was put in there as a counter to fears that the federal government would undermine the militia. And it has force of law.

Thanks to the first half of the Second Amendment, federal courts have jurisdiction to overrule Congress if the militia is being neglected.

The courts have not yet exercised this jurisdiction, but it's there if they ever decide to act on it.

Current law clearly neglects the militia. Hopefully one day this will be rectified.

 

Sorry, there's no militia. You're pretending. You want real infantry weapons join the Army as an 11B or Marine Corps as an 0311.

 

I was responding to a post that talked about disarming militiamen as if they still existed.

But since you brought it up, the absence of a militia completely annihilates any leftist claim that the Second Amendment only applies to militiamen.

Or I could call for the courts to force the government to create a militia. And maybe one day they will do so.

Or I could make due with the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court is currently applying it, which isn't perfect, but will still strike down a lot of restrictive gun laws.

 

Or you could just grow up and stop pretending you need real infantry weapons unless you're in the real infantry.

 

Civil liberties are not about need. I am not pretending to need anything.

 

Key word being Civil as in CIVILIAN!

There is nothing in the 2A that grants anyone the right to MILITARY GRADE firearms!