I agree Mostly. My statements RE: the Guard, or Reserve, are only as they stand today, since they are truly the only ones among us, that could (can & have been) reliably be called upon collectively to provide a common defense. It's been my POV that the Founders were what would be classified as more Libertarian than anything else politically recognized today, which is why I agree with the point you're making. I'm no legal scholar, or History Graduate either. My degree is in Culinary Arts, & I have a Graduate Degree in the School of Hard Knocks, being essentially solo from the age of 16... 30 odd years long past.
I served in the organized militia as well as active duty military for 10 years. If we go to war on a scale like in WW2, how much longer will it take to train militias into "well regulated" form? If the war is fought in America, will we have time to train them properly from scratch? My kids know basic gun safety and shoot regularly. Mostly pistols, shotguns, and .22s, but we are building ARs. When compared to people who have never shot a gun, who would you rather carry a gun around you as you go into battle?
I served ten years too. If the unorganized militia is called up how could you GUARANTEE that the man serving next to you is trained?
How are you guaranteed now? My argument is that it's easier to train somebody that already knows how to safely handle a gun. Besides, it's the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. The reason is so that the militia will be made up of competent people and the people don't have to wait for government protectors to come rescue them. Especially if the government is infringing the rights of the people. I don't want to get into a "fighting the government" argument, but an armed people is a good deterrent to oppression. I also pity any military that decides to invade an armed America.
The whole "training argument" is raised by the Liberal Left as a mechanism to fight against the Right to keep and bear Arms, it has nothing to do with any valid concerns, they use it as a method of validating Gun Control and inject the Militia in there somewhere to promote Gun Control for the people on the premise, there is no Militia anymore, do if they hinge the Right to keep and bear Arms on the Militia. They feel they can also introduce Gun Prohibition on that basis of a causal relationship between Gun Control and the non existent Militia which is not Any Government entity. The Militia consists of unpaid Civilian Volunteers self equipped, Privately trained, to Military standards. There is a vast precident in these matters as follows: Amateur Radio, the requirements are intensive to Receive an entry level Technician license issued by the Federal Communications Commission. Administered by volunteers, is very effective in every way, see the ARRL for more information. There are numerous examples of private Civilian Agencies that train Civilians in various fields that together can train a Militia in every conceivable field necessary for Field Officers of said Militia. An command level Officer of The Militia would have the equivalent training of an Officer of equal rank in the Regular Army. To include every MOS.
Congress decides the standard of "well regulated", with respect to the militia. Thus, the militia, as it stands now, is already "well regulated".
They are self provided. There is no provision in the constitution for the provision of arms for the militia. - - - Updated - - - Then congress could decide that it is not well regulated and that they need training. I agree completely. LOL
If the militia were activated, which group would be more "well-regulated"; casual gun owners who have a basic understanding of their guns, or anti-gun liberals who are terrified of them?
Then they are not riflemen in the militia and do not need firearms training. They can dig the latrines. - - - Updated - - - You are making my case. The third option is the group that owns guns AND has formal training.
You did not answer the question. It is pertinent because the founders knew that protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms was the only hope of mustering a well-regulated militia. People who were already equipped and proficient (regardless of the degree of proficiency) were far superior to those who were not, with regards to assembling a well-regulated militia. Today, progressives, such as you, want The People to be wholly dependent upon government for their security. And progressive government wants to not have to worry about The People, with regards to THEIR security.
I did answer the question. I chose the third option. You don't get to ask the questions AND give the answers. LOL - - - Updated - - - When you buy ammunition you must present your militia card.
A militia is created as soon as armed citizens become motivated to come together in armed resistance. Government is irrelevant to the process.
They would be much more motivated and WELL REGULATED if they could not buy ammo until they had their militia card
No you didn't answer the question. You answered a different question. The question was, if a militia needs to be formed, which group is more well-regulated; casual self-trained gun owners, or those who have never operated a gun? Of these two choices, which can more quickly and cheaply become a well-regulated militia? If a militia needs to be formed, it will be more likely to become well-regulated if The People who come to join already have their weapons, and have some degree of familiarity with them. This was the founder's intent. Not that a well-regulated militia be formed, but that they needed to be able to form one to be able to secure the desired state of freedom. And if they were to have any hope to form one, it could only become well-regulated quickly if it was formed of people who did not need to be equipped or trained how to operate their arms. Thus the RKBA.
Well before I address your claim that scholars and the founders disagree with me, I want to give you a chance to clarify why you disagree with yourself. Yesterday you said this: But this comes only one day after you unilaterally declared: You may not have noticed this internal disagreement, so I’m letting you see it to give you a chance to explain it. I agree the founders wanted a general levy militia rather than a select few militia. But the point I am making is the founders gave Congress the power to do it either way. At least in your last post you have come to the conclusion that Congress has used this power to create a select few militia while declaring everyone else to be in the unorganized militia. But it is not, and never has been, about who comprises the militia. It has always been about who controls it—who controls its arms, its organization, its training, and its discipline. What I want you to see is how this constitutional power of control is absolute that we can do nothing in contradiction of it. If Congress wishes to keep the unorganized militia “unorganized, unequipped, and untrained,” then there is nothing we can do to countermand this. We simply have no power to do what you ask us to do. We cannot organize an independent militia absent congressional consent. Do we have “private militias” today? Yes. But they live at the feet of a slumbering giant who has the power to wake up and step on them. We gave Congress all the militia power, and the supremacy clause allows Congress to outlaw any militia training or organizing it does not approve of. Congress even has the power to require the organized militia to enforce a private militia ban. Now your argument is to deny the RKBA to anyone—for any firearm—unless they first engage in the very training that Congress has the power to prohibit. Don’t you see how this is nothing more than a backdoor way to effectively deny the RKBA? This may or may not be your unstated goal, but it is the outcome. The one thing the giant cannot reach is the broader individual right of its citizens to have arms, and your proposal places all of these arms back within its reach. Find for me a single founder who declared a requirement must exist before you can exercise the individual RKBA outside actual militia service—one who says the precondition is that we must train as a militia before we can privately exercise the RKBA. I tell you now you cannot find one because none of them believed this. Now to address the “disagreement” you suggest I have with the founders and constitutional scholars…. Here are the points from my last post: For the founders standing armies were feared—the preference was to rely upon a militia—the federalists wanted unified control over militia arms and organization—and they wrote Article I Section 8 to grant this very power to Congress. Tell me, if you can, how your quotes from Lee and Mason “disagree” with this. There was no disagreement over who should be in the militia. Again, the greatest argument was over who should control it and have the power to arm it. See the federalist position: "This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29. (note how Hamilton is actually quoting the language of Article I Section Further, to counter fears that a federal tyrant could then seize control of the militia (because Congress could, at whim, transfer command of a state militia to the President), Hamilton argued the officer appointment power would prevent this: "What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia." Id. Patrick Henry’s response was the power to arm was also the power to disarm: "Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States — reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defense is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither — this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory." Patrick Henry, Speech of June 5, 1788, before the Virginia Ratifying Convention, reprinted in The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, beginning page 199, Mentor Books, 1986, edited by Ralph Ketchum. Indeed, Henry wanted a concurrent power to arm the militias: "May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be afraid? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states Shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication." Patrick Henry Speech of June 14, 1778. (Henry also feared that this belief in “implied” powers would run both ways and that if carried forth then what was to stop Congress from claiming implied power to also appoint militia officers) But the federalists refused to tread this path of confusion, and the Constitution was drafted and ratified to give all the militia organizing, training, and arming power to the Congress. Tell me all you want that “most constitutional scholars” disagree with me. I say this must be “most scholars” who have never heard of Alexander Hamilton or Patrick Henry (and others I can cite if you wish), and have never read either the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers, or the actual Constitution itself. But perhaps you can show me wrong, since you claim familiarity with the writings of “most constitutional scholars.” All I note is you did not cite a single one to support your claim. Here is another primary point. Everyone agreed that the RKBA existed independently of militia service. In fact, this was a prime federalist argument—giving Congress power over militia arms does not give Congress power over the individual RKBA, and privately held arms are enough to resist tyranny: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 188. This is itself a recognition of the individual RKBA beyond the militia power of Congress. Indeed, the only description written by a founder which explains the purpose of the 2nd Amendment as drafted and presented for ratification was this: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear private arms.” Tench Coxe, discussing the purpose of the Second Amendment in his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," published under the pseudonym, "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1. (Emphasis added) This is the crux of the RKBA—a right your proposal seeks to give back to the control of Congress.
I disagree. I believe the founders wanted a well regulated militia and there is no EVIDENCE that our militia are trained riflemen. Owning a gun does not mean you are trained. If that were the case they would just hand out weapons in the military and not expect you to be qualified on them. They do not for a reason. - - - Updated - - - Let me be clear then. There is an unorganized militia and I was wrong to say otherwise. And that militia is not well regulated currently
So you want to create regulation on ammo? Do women, Handicapped, and the elderly need a militia card to by ammo?
