If I understand it, the OP wants militia training and membership to be mandatory for anybody wanting to buy an AR15 or AK47. I love the idea of people getting training and supporting our country, but I don't like the idea of having to jump through government hoops to own a rifle when all you want to do is protect your home or go hog hunting. It's not a right if they can tax it away or take your gun away because you needed to work instead of going to your weekend duty. Do women and disabled people also have to do the same or does that only apply to men? There is too much red tape in gun ownership as it is.
Simply compelling citizens to be armed and requiring them to muster "once every two years", (for training), would not meet any standard of military discipline and would never permit these citizens to be described as "well regulated". The term "well regulated", when used to describe citizen militia is an accolade, a compliment on their operational order and condition and their expertness in military maneuvers -- essentially their readiness for battle. That can not be achieved with the minuscule training you have provided for. The fundamental premise of the OP fails.
The OP is basically restating a law that was in effect from 1792 to 1903. That law did compel white male citizens to provide themselves with an appropriate firearm and ammunition and various accessories and to muster with the aforementioned arms when called for duty or exercise (training).
Incorrect. There's no connection to your participation in basic rifle training and your right to buy an AR - unless you live in a jurisdiction where ARs are banned. If you live in one of those jurisdictions, you can buy an AR as the federal law requiring you to do so supersedes the state law that forbids it.
Read the entire post: All of this is fully within the power of the federal government and would create a large pool of people with sufficient basic marksmanship skills from which the state and federal militias could draw upon as necessary. This, the law would certainly do. Not in the slightest - remember this is a "step towards", not the entire journey.
I read it and I thought I understood where you were coming from. I was going with the "well regulated" part as being the primary objective. If the actual military readiness of these citizens is less of a priority and just firearm familiarity, respect and simple marksmanship among a wide segment of the population is the goal, you need to accept that's not the same as making "well regulated militia" out of them. If you aren't looking to make soldiers out of them I feel the legal obligation you promote is way too heavy handed. What you propose was recognized as being onerous and unworkable when the Constitution was being debated, (and the necessity of a citizen militia was unquestioned); now that the actual need for an active citizen militia is debatable (at best) the idea of such an obligation is ludicrous. You would be successful beyond your wildest dreams with a re-invigoration of the Civilian Marksmanship Program and offering tax credits for the purchase of a militia useful arm and ammo (made in the USA of course, AR platform preferred). Combine that with dedicating public lands for ranges and even offering credits for range memberships and sponsoring local, state and national competitions and structured youth programs in schools and Boy and Girl Scouts and you would have great participation. You would find that approach much more accepted and would be more engaging than a top-down mandate from the federal government.
Either forcing people to buy a product (health insurance) is reasonable, or forcing people to buy a product (firearm) isn't. A mandate that all citizens be armed is a sort of insurance really...
I'm all for our 2nd amendment and for doing such things as getting rid of "gun free zones" since they don't deter a murderer one bit! But I am not for making people, under penalty of a tax or a fine, own a weapon if they do not wish to have one.
I am not for making people, under penalty of a tax or a fine, buy insurance, if they dont want/cant afford it... So I totally understand where you are coming from. Now imagine congress just said "(*)(*)(*)(*) you. We know what is best for you" Welcome to my world.
An noted in the topic title -- it's a step, the first of several. From this point, the states can do as they like, as can the federal government. The objective of this effort, as far as it goes, is to instill at least basic marksmanship skills in as many people as possible. The militia act of 1792 did essentially the same thing as my proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 The primary difference is that it includes a means to generate revenue to support the required training and allow for a subsidy for people with low incomes, both of which are a necessity in this day and age. All of these are good ideas as well.
