View Single Post
  #99  
Old 09-01-2019, 02:29 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
The government may at the time have decided to only impress those regulations on those citizens enrolled and notified in the militia.

However, I don't see how you can simultaneously claim that the word "militia" undoubtedly applies to all citizens capable of bearing arms, and that it only applies to those who are enrolled and notified.
Actually, legally, there are at least three "militia". . .

The 1) unorganized "general" militia, the "all citizens capable of bearing arms" . . . from which the 2) organized militia of the state is drawn and then trained and deployed according to regulations issued under the authority of the Art. I militia clauses, and the 3) "part" of the organized state militia which are called up into actual service of the nation and paid by the United States. Number 1 is not addressed in the body of the Constitution, only the 2nd Amendment; numbers 2 & 3 are addressed in the body of the Constitution and in the 5th Amendment ("when in actual service in time of War or public danger" the grand jury requirement is relieved because you are bound under the UCMJ).

And if you really want to nit-pick, (and who doesn't) only the part of the militia "employed in the actual service of the nation" is in any shape or form, under any "governing" control of Congress . . . and the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States". So, tell me what control does either Congress or the President really, legitimately have over the unorganized, not enrolled in any militia, arms keeping a bearing private citizen?

Stop trying to pound the round peg of the people's right to arms into the square hole of the organized militia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Either the government had the regulatory power to impose all those regulations on "all citizens capable of bearing arms", whether or not it chose to in 1792; or it didn't --
It didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
in which case, where are all the objections from 1792, when most of the founders were still around? -- ; or the word "militia" doesn't apply to all citizens capable of bearing arms, but only to those officially enrolled in a state or federal militia -- in which case the 2nd doesn't apply to individuals except as part of such a militia.
Object to what? OK, let's run with your absurd reading /interpretation . . .

The impressment of militia duty was only on "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted).

So, is it your contention that . . .

"the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."

. . . had no right to keep and bear arms and could have legally had some sort of arms deprivation placed on them because they were not members of the militia?

THAT strikes me as something they really would have objected to . . .


Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
So people have no right not be be murdered or enslaved as long as this is done by a private actor?
Correct.

You have no enforceable right to not be a victim of crime.

You have no right to be or "feel" safe.

No doubt a person killing you is a violation of law, but that isn't because it is an enforceable right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
That's, I'll just say, an interesting position.
Take your objections up with John Locke and how the founders /framers interpreted his teatise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
But I'm pretty sure that's a very large part of why most people agree to be governed in the first place: so they won't be murdered or enslaved by anybody who happens along.
Correct, an important reason why people enter into society is for power in numbers and using that collective force for defense from outside aggression. Also, establishing a criminal code to punish violations of the social order by those within that society according to agreed upon processes of justice (including due process).

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I kind of doubt that's possible.
Correct again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Poking holes in your argument is mostly for the purpose of dissuading anybody else from believing it.
Will you let me know, perhaps with changing the font color, when you feel you are poking holes in my argument?

.

Last edited by Abatis; 09-01-2019 at 02:31 PM.