I agree that the two separate and independent clauses of the Second Amendment have been misinterpreted, in order to create a catch 22, Saying, you must be a member of the Militia in order to keep and bear Arms, however, this is just not true. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State." "The Right of "The People" to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed." This clause is free standing with no limitations, no training requirements, and this is what the Founding Father's intended, that all The People be Armed and not deprived of Arms. I also maintain, that The "well regulated" Militia, was not part of any Regular Military force, or Military Reserve, but Ordinary Regular Unpaid Citizen Volunteers, that could / can be activated for duties such as Search & Rescue, or as a Posse to go after fugitives aiding Law Enforcement, something Regular Military forces are prohibited from. The Militia, has many possibilities of aiding in times of crisis, and being sell equipped with private resources, many times have the home advantage over let's say National Guard from another State. A corroborating example is Amateur Radio and The American Radio Relay League, Amateurs are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and are highly trained, they are unpaid volunteers and many times throughout history, have responded and provided Emergency Communications in times of need. The same is true of Medical Rescue, many different types of Medically licensed first responders come together and provide Medical aid during disasters. People have been coming together to help as Volunteers throughout the History of Our Great Nation, did they need to be forced to be well trained ? No. There's and proof they were well trained and still are well trained, without it being mandatory. I have as a certified Firearms Instructor provided training free of charge to anyone that wanted, if they could not afford it, and others even provided free ammo and targets. The rub is the word mandatory and using that to limit the Right to keep and bear Arms in contrary to the Second Amendment.
Abortion rights are infringed in many ways. Our militia is a mess - - - Updated - - - On what basis? Who is your CO? What are your general orders? What is your rank? Where is your muster station?
George Mason (one of the Founders) would have argued that it was everyone who could be armed or arm himself (or herself in this modern day). That the government had no right to decide who or who may not be arned (perhaps with some very severe restrictions, such as violent felons and the incapacitated.) Any attempt to call a governmetn organization a "militia" would be put into the "special" militia category.
I believe the militia was created to fight a tyrannical government. And currently they are poorly regulated to do so. They are no more than a mob. - - - Updated - - - The militia should not be part of the government because it may need to fight the government. And it should be trained to do so
Our Militia is as I'd stated earlier. Legally at least. (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are—(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 I'm sure you'll take issue with the facts again, so, good night.
Take me and fellow Army veterans. I know what I was trained very well to fire and use. The M-1 Garand in Basic. The M-14 automatic rifle in AIT as well as a variety of machine guns. I have an ID card that was issued to me as a Vet and that does not get CA to stop making me do a song and dance to buy new guns. I qualified with the flame thrower, the 2.75 in Rocket Launcher, the .50 cal and .30 cal machine guns. The M-60 Machine gun and the BAR machine gun. But I have to stand in line and fill out papers that are checked on so I get to buy a .22 cal rifle. Something in the Democrats plans stinks.
Does the constitution make this distinction? - - - Updated - - - You would currently be unqualified to serve as qualified in ANY current military unit
The Truth is, The New well regulated Militia can be better trained and better equipped than a comparable detachment of Marines. More motivated and enthusiastic and hardworking. When you are defending your home team, you tend to be highly motivated, and The home advantage goes a long way.
I suppose you could check on that yourself. I have no need or want to continue further. Trolls gonna troll, & circular argument is circular.
But that is not part of the constitution, is it? Does the constitution where it says my rights shall not be infringed on include the terms I have to qualify for active duty?
I think it stinks too, with your service and record you should have a standard issue M-16A2, a sidearm, with all accessories and annual allotment of ammo and access to any Military Range, free of charge, and be able to carry same in any State.
Now hold on, why is he unqualified ? Anyone with previous Military Experience is already Pre-Qualified to serve in The New Militia.
Prior to be allowed to carry any weapon in the military a person must qualify on THAT weapon. Weapons are not handed out like toys just because you are in the military
That is a simple qualification course, anyone that qualified with an M-14, can easily qualify with an M-16A2,. very easily done. I should know as a qualified Instructor.
No, doing so would be treason against the Federal government. The Militia I pointed out was the standing army and funded and run by the States so there is Constitutional ground for a private citizens army outside the US Government at some level save what the government authorized under the law which includes the unorganized militia. They could pull that and say no militia would be allowed unless under the authority of a State who must fund, appoint non-commissioned officers, use commissioned officers the Federal government approves paid for by the State, pay to arm this militia and pay them and set up regulations with the Federal government for them. Now you want that fine but right now there isn't a need for one we have a very powerful military force around the nation and the National Guard and various Reserves so we are very safe as long as people aren't treasonous to the government. I for one feel quite safe from threats and enjoy the protection of the government local to Federal.
One that he has not taken and this my point. Mandated training - - - Updated - - - Our country was founded on the very treason you describe. The founders knew that this may be needed again. And thus the civilian militia
Training is done all The time, there is no other way, Medics need training, lots of it, very intensive training, Communications officers need much training, so do any Number of support services, far more complicated than AIT, etc.... The New Militia would need to spend more time in training than Regular Soldiers.
You are on my side. Mandated training. I agree. We should get started now - - - Updated - - - Socialist? LOL
It is clear your argument bans me from owning a firearm despite the constitution naming that as an original right. - - - Updated - - - Maybe you missed that I winked.
There you go again, infringing on my rights. I wish to comment in general I find it rather stark how you are anti infant in the womb, meaning the state has no authority. But over a piece of private property, a gun, guaranteed no infringement, and suddenly you love state. Funny innit?
