I would? I was unaware that I wanted to ban all guns. You’d think I would have read my previous posts on this issue in which I’ve said I wouldn’t support banning all guns - or even the majority of guns.
We won’t know that until we try it.
The NRA and its supporters have made sure that any efforts at gun control are kept as minimal and ineffective as possible. So it’s no surprise these token efforts produce minimal and ineffective results.
What militia are you talking about? The National Guard? Because I don’t see any connection between the National Guard and the Second Amendment. National Guardsmen use weapons that are issued to them by the government, not their own personal weapons. The same is true about various law enforcement agencies.
What organization exists that requires its members to provide their own firearms and functions as a militia?
Some areas banned all handguns and effectively banned any gun for home defense. No results.
Several states, including CA have banned assault weapons. No reults.
So, then tell, me, since banning all handguns, and banning assault weapons didnt work, what would you do? and dont tell me to look back at others posts. Lay it out here, now.
And the National gd is now part of the US army, it’s no longer even a pretense of a militia.
It’s been called the National Guard for over a century. Why would I, or you, have a problem with that?
Maybe you’d have better luck actually addressing actual arguments made by actual posters here.
Read the link. :rolleyes:
By somebody with a gun?
And the government is the people, this being a democracy and the Constitution *starting with an explanation of it and all that. That’s whose right it is and how it’s implemented - we as a nation need to have a ready military, it needs arms and regulation, therefore we have a right to have an armed and regulated military. It’s nothing new either, the Articles of Confederation spelled it out even more clearly, and so did the colonial governments. Go visit the Magazine next time you’re in Williamsburg for an example.
What’s so hard about that? Nothing, unless you want a different conclusion and are contortedly trying to backfill your way to one.
*Footnote: The Articles, the constitution that was actually in effect for the Framers and that therefore likely guided their views, say:
Could that be any more clear?
Indeed I did, and everyone agrees it was a stretch by SCOTUS.
Or with a knife, if no one else has guns.
Whoa… well that de-escalated quickly.
I’ve put up some in this thread, feel free to choose one or more to rebut.
Congress chose to override the militia laws that set-out that process and relieve all citizen impressment of militia duty. By all means lobby to have an effective militia law written and enacted.
Even when there was a militia law that laid out the requirements of ENROLLED citizens, their duty was to provide themselves with a firearm in good working order, a supply of ammo and accessories to make the gun functional and a knapsack and appear with these items when called to muster or exercise. The state and federal government were responsible for establishing the organizational hierarchy and regimen of training.
So yes, in the general sense, assuming the state and federal governments were derelict in their duties, a citizen’s militia duty could have been fulfilled simply by signing up and acquiring a gun and ammo.
Given that the militia law mandated every able-bodied white male citizen*, 18 to 45 years old was to enroll and when notified, provide himself with the required equipment, yes, if a citizen met the criteria, he was in violation for failing to fulfil his civic duty . . .
*there were exceptions, elected officials, judges, postal workers, ferrymen, etc .
I suspect aliens landing in Times Square will be reported first.
If I’m following you correctly, I disagree. Which should be clear; I’ve said in this thread that I believe the Second Amendment gives an individual right to own and carry firearms which is effectively unrelated to the existence of any militia or membership therein.
As long as we’re throwing ideas out here, I once read a book (sorry, it was a long time ago and I don’t remember the author or title) where the author presented an interesting interpretation of the Second Amendment. He said it guaranteed people the right to serve in the military. His argument was that there’s a close connection between groups which have reduced political and legal rights and groups which are restricted from military service.
You can believe whatever you like. But the thread topic is about what the convention delegates *meant *- and they were pretty clear about it.
I’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you. But you are at least the second person in this thread, who is clearly a gun rights advocate, who has impressed the duty of lobbying for a ‘functional citizen militia’ on someone who is clearly opposed to the idea of immutable gun rights. So I put the question back to you and yours: Why have you not lobbied the congress to re-instate a well-regulated militia in line with the letter and spirit of the 2nd A of the Constitution?
As well it should! But since neither thoughts nor prayers are likely to have any effect on bringing about such a fantastic occurrence, that frees us up to continue to lobby for socio-political change with respect to gun laws.
Again, what makes you think that we don’t have a currently well-regulated militia in accord with the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment?
Regards,
Shodan
He is correct. The original wording of the 2nd was simply to protect the rights to bear arms. However, the anti-standing army group insisted on adding the militia clause.
The militia clause isnt there to limit the rights of individuals to bears arms it’s to limit the Federal governments right to a standing army by allowing the states to have militias.
Now of course since every man was in the militia, the assumption was that they’d use those guns also in the militia.
In a few states we do, but the National Guard is part of the standing army, it has been Federalized. It is not, in any way shape or form a “militia” as the Founding Fathers thought of one. In fact they’d be horrified.
As long as we’re reading the minds of the Founders, they’d be horrified at the destructive capacity of modern small arms, and horrified as to the prevalence and body count of mass shootings in America. And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress.
That’s the problem with originalist arguments. You can say you know what the founding fathers meant but how does anyone really know what somebody else was thinking? All we can know is what they wrote down. And the text of the Second Amendment does not have a single clear meaning.