You're viewing part of a thread.
Yes. Prepared includes training. However training isn't required to be considered part of a militia. As for organized, there are many different levels of organization, for example your friends and family resisting an invasion ala red dawn, and the national guard are both organized to different degrees.
So if training isn't necessary to be considered a member of a militia, and organization can mean any amount of organization at all, then you are using "militia" to mean "people." If that is what you think they were saying, then why would they use the word "militia" at all?
"militia" refers to that aspect of "the people" that can be charged with enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. The second amendment uses "militia" and "people" synonymously. It declares that average, everyday individuals provide the security and freedom of the state. That obligation is not tasked to the armies of a lord, nobleman, or king, but retained by We The People, individually and collectively.
The second amendment says that because we bear this responsibility, we must not be disarmed.
It also says that the militia should be well regulated. Assuming that militia is all able bodied adults, it is currently entirely un-regulated.
We could restrict ownership to one assault rifle per militia member*, and have a licensing program that requires a training course. We could mandate physical standards across the board, schedule regular local military training for every able-bodied adult. We could have a quota of bullets that each militia member should have on hand, require range training every six months, and account for missing bullets and negligent discharges.
I notice you're not arguing for any of that.
Edit: actually, make this "require one assault rifle per..." And standardize on a caliber so that members can share ammunition.
It also says that the militia should be well regulated. Assuming that militia is all able bodied adults, it is currently entirely un-regulated.
It is not unregulated. We are subject to every regulation that Congress has deemed necessary and proper to impose on the "Unorganized class" of the militia. (10 USC §246).
If you don't feel that the regulations on that class of the militia are appropriate, it is your responsibility to inform your representatives, and to ask them to subject you to those regulations that you believe are "necessary and proper" to ensure you can fulfill your militia obligations.
What regulations do you want to subject yourself to?
We could restrict ownership to one assault rifle per militia member*,
Nope.
Article I allows regulation of the militia, not their weapons. Second amendment prohibits infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. You cannot be restricted to a single firearm, or only one of a certain type.
and have a licensing program that requires a training course.
Nope. You can require every militia member attend that training course, but you cannot make gun ownership contingent on having done so.
You can criminally prosecute those who refuse to attend that mandated militia training course, and upon conviction, you can strip them of certain rights and privileges, including the right to keep and bear arms. But first you have to mandate that everyone attend such a course, and legislate a legitimate penalty for failure to attend.
I notice you're not arguing for any of that.
The only one of those I would argue for is regulation of negligent discharge, but I don't have to: negligent discharges are already heavily regulated. You can easily find yourself in violation of existing law for negligently discharging your firearm. None of the other regulations you proposed make you any more prepared to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion.
The only regulation I would propose would be mandated training on the laws governing use of force. These laws don't seem to be common knowledge among the general public. Too many people conflate an employer's "appeasement" policy with legality.
Article I allows regulation of the militia, not their weapons
Why not? This is hair splitting exercise.
You can require every militia member attend that training course, but you cannot make gun ownership contingent on having done so.
Why not? We have mandatory training for vehicles, but we can't have them for guns?
It is not unregulated
Yes, it is.
Regulation would included licensing, training, drills, and organization. People like you, the gun lobby, and an entire industry of manufacturers are working to keep that from happening. Claiming all able-bodied citizens as militia is a polite fiction that you use in order to avoid regulation. See your responses above if you want examples of what this looks like.
I've owned a lot of guns. Right now, I have three- an AR-15, a 9mm pistol, and a derringer. I have never bought a gun in a gun store or had to register a firearm. I've never had a background check run for any of them. I've never been licensed. I've never had to attend a class. I can get more guns whenever I want- that's what no regulation looks like.
You have repeatedly told me that I should contact my representative, a representative who will blow me off with a form letter because he doesn't represent my interests, or the interests of everyday citizens who just want to not get shot.
He represents you and people like you.
None of the other regulations you proposed make you any more prepared to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion.
Yes, they do. One rifle is all that is necessary for one soldier- there is a reason troops aren't issued multiple weapons. One caliber allows soldiers to share ammunition. Mandatory training ensures they're skilled with the weapon. Regular drills will keep those skills sharp. Physical fitness tests would make sure the soldier is physically prepared for combat.
You want everyone to train for war, then let's do that. Or we can admit that claiming everyone is military is a ploy to avoid any restrictions on gun ownership.
Regulation would included licensing, training, drills, and organization.
Nobody has proposed militia training, militia drills, militia organization. Gun owners have been opposed to "licensing", but "licensing" is not a "militia" regulation, but a "gun owner" regulation. Require all members of the militia to become "licensed", and we can talk.
If all citizens are part of the militia then regulation of the militia is the same thing as regulation of gun owners. These are not two different groups of people, or two different types of regulation. When I say "licensing" I'm advocating essentially what any military does before they put a weapon in a soldier's hands- training, and a record of that training, as a pre-condition to arming and deploying a soldier.
The two groups are not the same. "Militia" includes both gun owners and gun non-owners. You are attempting to impose rules only on gun owners. You cannot do that.
You can establish training requirements, drill weekends, firearms proficiency standards on the militia, but not as a condition of owning guns. You cannot impose them on gun owners alone.
Why not? This is hair splitting exercise.
If you actually read Article I, Section 8 parts 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd amendment, you would know exactly why not. Article 1 can be used to compel training and provide arms; it cannot be used to infringe on the right to keep and bear.
As for your physical fitness, weapons training, and other conditions, they would be far less stringent than my own standards, and will not improve my readiness. I foresee no threat sufficient to justify that degree of intrusion on the average citizen, not the expense it would take to enforce.
I can justify mandatory training on use of force, but not the rest of what you propose.
If you actually read Article I, Section 8 parts 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd amendment, you would know exactly why not. Article 1 can be used to compel training and provide arms; it cannot be used to infringe on the right to keep and bear.
I have read them, and I agree with them. If you're in the militia, you should absolutely be able to keep and bear arms. If you're in the militia. You're arguing that everyone is in the militia, and therefore should be able to keep and bear arms, while simultaneously arguing that the militia shouldn't be required to do anything to maintain readiness.
Like require members to demonstrate proficiency with their weapon in order to remain members.
I foresee no threat sufficient to justify that degree of intrusion on the average citizen, not the expense it would take to enforce.
If you see no threat that requires a militia to maintain readiness, then why have a militia at all?
You're arguing that everyone is in the militia, and therefore should be able to keep and bear arms, while simultaneously arguing that the militia shouldn't be required to do anything to maintain readiness.
The militia should be required to do exactly what Congress seems "necessary and proper" for the militia to do. What constitutes "necessary and proper" is up to Congress to decide, and Congress answers to their constituents.
Like require members to demonstrate proficiency with their weapon in order to remain members.
The constitution recognizes the militia, it does not define the militia or its members. "Membership" in the militia is conferred by birth. Congress can define when a person can be "called forth", but they do not have the power to eject a member of the constitutional militia.
The militia is the people. Declaring someone to not be in the militia is declaring them to not be a person.
If you see no threat that requires a militia to maintain readiness, then why have a militia at all?
I did not claim there was no threat at all. I claimed no foreseeable threat was sufficient to justify your measures.
The constitution recognizes the militia, it does not define the militia or its members. "Membership" in the militia is conferred by birth
The militia is the people. Declaring someone to not be in the militia is declaring them to not be a person.
A militia is a group of civilians organized as a military force. Like any military force, it requires training, testing, and equipment. It isn't some immutable, intrinsic attribute, and if you believe that, then I'm not sure what more we have to talk about.
The idea is nonsense.
You're using a fairly recent definition of the word, and not the constitutional meaning. Today, "militia" generally means "a privately organized paramilitary unit". You're suggesting a publicly-organized unit; that would more properly be described as an "army".
But this is not at all how the Constitution uses the word. We know this from the contemporary writings of the founding fathers, the principles of democracy, and from contextual clues within the constitution itself.
First of all, "militia" is never used in the plural. There is only one militia considered by the constitution. That might seem pedantic, but it is an important concept. It does reference "parts" of the militia, but the second amendment does not say that the security of a free state is provided by a "part" of the militia.
Second, compare and contrast the powers Congress has over "armies", the "Navy" and the "militia". Congress can "raise" armies, and "provide" a Navy. They can create these military entities. They don't create the militia. They "call forth" the militia. The militia continues to exist, whether Congress chooses to call it forth or not. Eliminate Congress, eliminate the constitution entirely, and the militia still remains.
Third, "democracy" is the fundamental idea that the source of power is "the people", not "the government" or "a king" or "a god". "Militia" refers to the capacity of the people to use physical force.
I mean it's really how far you want to take samantics.
I take the second to mean every person has the right to form into groups to protect themselves and their own from foreign and domestic threats. Others disagree and that's part of the whole debate about the second.
What does it mean to you?
It means absent a unified millitary that the states have the right to assemble militias for the common defense of american citizens within their borders,
Because they didn't have a unified military or a modern model of civilian policing yet back then.
That's also why the third amendment is worded the way it is, it's supposed to mean you can't make a city pay for its own occupation by peace keeping forces, IE cops most of the time, because back then cops and the militia were one in the same.
The whole idea was NOT to have a unified military. But to have volunteer militias.
Yeah, and that was proven to be ludicrous once Connecticut and Pennsylvania started shooting at each other over who's stuff was who's
That's incorrect. The right to form groups (for any purpose) is guaranteed by the first amendment right to association, not the second.
The Constitution only uses the word "militia" in the singular. There is only one militia.
Basically, "militia" is who we are until we are drafted into an army or the navy.