You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
We know this from the contemporary writings of the founding fathers...
Find me some.
Use of the word "militia"
First of all, "militia" is never used in the plural...
This is some sovereign citizen level pedantry. For anyone reading this who doesn't know, sovereign citizens are people in the US who, to quote wikipedia:
...have their own pseudolegal belief system based on misinterpretations of common law and claim to not be subject to any government statutes, unless they consent to them...
Claiming that the founders deliberately didn't use the plural form "militias", and that this use suggests that they believed in one immutable, intrinsic militia in which all Americans are members, is a ridiculous leap.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
State is also singular here. Are we to take it that the founders believed being a member of the state was also an intrinsic aspect of a person, such that-
Declaring someone to not be in the
militiastate is declaring them to not be a person-While they were trying to extricate themselves from a state and form their own nation?
In addition to the lack of a plural, you also believe (apparently) that by saying they "call forth" the militia, the founding documents and others are implying that it is preexisting, and that they simply summon the militia, like some demonic entity. Here's Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers:
a well regulated militia, composed of the Yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people.
The militia is made up of the yeomanry, which are a land holding class between the gentry and serfs. Why would it be necessary to state that the militia was made up of the yeomanry, if he was aware that it was made up of everyone, from birth? Maybe because it's a loosely organized fighting force that's formed as necessary to defend the country, and not a permanent state of being.
So your first two points are really the same point- that there are small turns of phrase in the founding documents, which you wish to interpret to fit your preconceived views.
Onward!
Democracy, yadda yadda
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.
Sure. You could say it that way.
A militia is a way in which a people use force. So is an army, or an air force, or a navy. Some of our citizens volunteer to commit violence on our behalf, and we pay them (ideally) and send them forth to do it.
The way in which you use the words here, and the fact that something so obviously, trivially true is part of your main three points, tells me that they have some ideological weight for you. These are applause lights.
What does it mean to call for a “democratic” solution if you don’t have a conflict-resolution mechanism in mind? [...] you have said the word “democracy,” so the audience is supposed to cheer. It’s not so much a propositional statement or belief, as the equivalent of the “Applause” light that tells a studio audience when to clap.
Unfortunately, I don't clap just because you said the right words.
And finally, the real problem
Even if we take all of your weirdly specific pedantry at face value, even if we decide that the Militia (note the capitals, and the singular usage) is something you are born into- it's still not true.
Because we're not all in the militia, are we? I doubt the founders would have considered women, children, blacks, or native americans to be part of the Militia. Moving forward to the present day, we have a wide variety of pacifists and rugged individualists, who would object, respectively, to harming others for any reason at all, or harming others for anyone but themselves.
Who gets to decide where the lines are for this intrinsic Militia-ness? The founders? The founders would have excluded lots of people. The militia themselves? A huge chunk of the left in US politics would exclude themselves from that label.
You?
I don't trust anyone who grounds their opinion on such a pivotal part of American politics in their obscure, pedantic interpretation of the founding documents.
Sorry.
The militia is made up of the yeomanry, which are a land holding class between the gentry and serfs.
You quote, but you do not realize: the nation they were establishing had no gentry, and no serfs. The "yeomanry" he was referring to was "everyone" in the "new world."
A militia is a way in which a people use force. So is an army, or an air force, or a navy
No. An Army is a way in which the state uses force. Likewise with a Navy or Air Force.
Because we're not all in the militia, are we? I doubt the founders would have considered women, children, blacks, or native americans to be part of the Militia.
I agree that they did not expect Congress to explicitly call forth women, children, blacks, or Indians. However, If they saw a woman using a weapon against at invading Redcoats, or at criminal attackers, or at an insurrectionist, they would have described her actions as those of the militia.
I would point out that the current legislative definition (10 USC§246) includes "children" (age 17) as well as certain women (female members of the National Guard), and excludes neither blacks nor native Americans.
The legislative definition is a subset of the constitutional meaning. Congress cannot include you in the legislative definition unless you already fit within the constitutional meaning.
Who gets to decide where the lines are for this intrinsic Militia-ness?
No such line exists. Everyone is the militia.
A huge chunk of the left in US politics would exclude themselves from that label.
That "chunk" deludes itself.
What about the violently insane? Felons? Are they in the militia as well? Actually, why limit it to adults? I'm sure plenty of 14-year-olds fought and died in the revolutionary war. What about the currently incarcerated? The mentally disabled?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. All five of the people you mentioned are in the militia. Three of them have been stripped of their right to keep and bear arms through due process of the law, while the other two are deemed incompetent. They retain the right to keep and bear arms, but they are also wards of a legal guardian, and cannot independently exercise that right.
Congress could, indeed, provide for calling forth 14-year-olds, if they deemed it necessary and proper to do so. The other 4 are subject to judicial rulings that may impact their ability to comply militia provisions. We certainly have called forth inmates to serve various roles where a need has arisen.
The laws governing use of force are not suspended for any of them; all five can use force under the law.
Why are the violently insane and violent criminals not permitted to carry firearms? I'm not asking for the current legal justification, but why you believe they shouldn't be permitted to carry firearms (assuming you do believe that).
In addition, do you believe that a five year old should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun, with their parents permission? I'm not talking about rarely, and in the country, but regularly, in crowded urban areas.
I can simplify the first part for you. The Constitution refers to "violently insane" and "violent criminals" as "the accused". To understand my opinion, make the appropriate substitutions, and read the constitution.
For the second part, a ward's exercise of liberties and property are subject to their guardian's judgment. The guardian is expected to act in the best interests of the ward. The guardian is also charged with protecting the rights of the people from infringement by the ward. The role of the guardian, then, is to prudently permit and restrict the liberties of their ward. This certainly includes the keeping and bearing of arms.
Wardship is restricted to those deemed legally incompetent, either by presumptive statute or by judicial decree.