A well regulated militia.

Well that would be a violation of the strict scrutiny doctrine so no you can't. Training is not such a violation

 

We are not talking about training. We are talking about "ordering" people to do training.

You can't force someone to do something as a private citizen.

 

We are not forcing you to do anything. But if you want to fly a plane or drive a car or perform surgery we DEMAND proof of instruction.

 

I was apologizing to the others for having to read this tripe.

 

If you are arguing that we have to make sure people have adequate training before they can purchase a firearm, you might have a case. But this is not what we are discussing. You were saying that people HAD to join a militia to get firearm training. This is a different argument. People have the freedom to get their firearm training from sources other than a militia.

 

I would prefer it done that way. I was only responding to the op originally. I think forcing someone to join a militia would likely not pass constitutional muster. But it would ensure adequate training. I would just like to see manadatory training.

 

It would seem you either forgot or intentionally left out the "Well Regulated" part.

 

The militia, such as it is defined by state and federal law, is well-regulated, in the opinion of the legislative bodies that created them.

 

If the militia is all able bodied people it is FAR from well regulated if we say well regulated means well trained and in good working order. Most members of our militia could not perform even basic infantry manuevers.

 

I disagree. I'm very amused.

 

something I've been saying for years, that nobody ever seems to discuss in this "militia" debate and tactic... almost EVERY american male, when they turn age 18, is mandated by law, under penalty of punishment, to register for the draft... this makes every american male who does, a recognized militia member, by definition... so if people want to take this "militia only" approach, I would merely suggest we check records and see if the male registered for the draft, if they did, the government recognizes them as a militia member, in which case they would be afforded the right to have weapons... and soon all women when they turn 18 will be required to register too... problem solved, end of discussion... we are officially recognized militia by definition once we register for that military draft of the government...

 

I have no desire to wallow in this anti gun thread, I'm just posting to say I think the woman that is chrisL's avatar is pleasing to the eye.

 

But then those same people need to be well regulated....meaning well trained and in good working order. The fact is they are not. What militaty unit just hands out weapons without training?

 

So who do you propose should do the training? The government?

 

Why do you assume she isn't trained? Is it because she's a woman?

Why do you hate women?

Never mind I know why.

 

It could be but it does not have to be. Most gun ranges could be certified and could make a nice living off providing this training.

- - - Updated - - -

She has provided no evidence of training. I may call myself a surgeon ....but you might want to check for the medical license.

 

I have no obligation to provide you with anything. Now stop whining, pajama boy.

 

You can not seem to go a single post without an insult. Do you realize that? And you have no obligation CURRENTLY. This concept seems very difficult for you to grasp for some reason. How can I help you?

 

Too bad we can't demand proof of intelligence before we allow people to post on the internet.

 

I can't help it. I despise those of you who want to interfere with MY rights as an American citizen. You can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

 

That is too bad. I agree.

- - - Updated - - -

You can not help yourself. It is beyond your control to avoid insults. That is just sad. I genuinely feel sympathy for you.

 

And what did "well-regulated" mean in 1776?

 

the same kind this country started with? lol... granted many people brought their own weapons, they weren't just handed out to all, but I would hope you knew that right...

the 2nd amendment does not say they must be well regulated... it says a well regulated militia is necessary... and because its necessary, the right shall not be infringed...

you see how completely different that changes the conversation, when we read it as its printed, versus turn it around and read it backwards, as if the militia must be well regulated prior to the right being applied, instead of saying its necessary to have one, so the right shall not be infringed... words and structure have meaning, don't twist it...

P.S. I thought I would add the second amendment below, so we can read it together... we see they recognize a well regulated militia is important, to secure the state, and the right of the PEOPLE (not the militia) shall not be infringed... you see how the PEOPLE are granted the right, not the militia specifically, but for those who always want to take this militia argument, I say every male who registers for the draft, is in fact legally recognized by the american government as militia... so which way you want it?

"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."

 

Actually in the early days of this country the militia trained FREQUENTLY. They were well regulated. Currently they are not