I understand perfectly that the first clause is there for the purpose of helping to define the content and meaning of the second clause.
Your intentional and dishonest use of a capital letter T for the word the shows that you are attempting the fraud of treating this phrase as a separate thought standing by itself. It is not.
Your own people have already quoted you the legal language - which you seemed to embrace and welcome - that showed clearly that even if we accept the fiction that such a militia exists as you want to believe it does, that the membership is restricted to able bodied males between 17 and 45 and women in the National Guard.
You lose yet again by your own evidence which you welcomed and embraced.
If you are done being like some sort of parody of a gungrabber, how about let’s do this: Just tell us what you think is a solution to the gun “problem” that would be fair and equitable to all concerned. Frankly, I’m worn out on you badly and incorrectly arguing your side of this.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Those are the only two relevant parts of the above paragraph. Since then, it’s worth noting that no one really discriminates between men and women anymore (except for compulsory military service), but that’s something that the ACLU might take issue with – if it wasn’t for the fact that they don’t view the RKBA as an individual right anyway (which is absolutely ridiculous, because everything else in the bill of rights is an individual right). And as for the upper limit on the age – do you plan on allowing people to purchase firearms and then forcing them to forfit (against the illegal search and seizure thing, I should think) them, if we ascribe to your definition of militia?
And, you have yet to prove that the first clause limits the second clause. So, lets do that real quick.
Do me a favor, while we’re at it, and explain to me while 9 out of 10 things would be considered individual and 1 out of 10 things would be considered a collective right?
Religion? What the fuck, are you stupid? Of course it’s an individual right – no one argues otherwise.
Search And Seizure? Individual, of course.
Speech, don’t even go there – idiot.
Need I go on?
There were machine-guns* in 1776, as has been mentioned. They also fought wars with cannon. Cannon. There were also repeating/quasi-semi-automatic crossbows as far as as Ancient China.
How on Earth can you possibly say “No-one should have big, scary, modern guns, but feel free to buy a cannon or a Puckle Defence Gun, or a repeating crossbow”?
This sort of thing is exactly why shooters keep trying to ‘confuse you with facts’, as you accuse- because without the facts, it’s clear you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. And there are, I argue, some subjects- and this is one of them- where having no functional knowledge of the subject at all means you (generic you) are not entitled to an opinion on it beyond “I don’t like what I’ve heard”.
And that’s fine. You’re allowed to not like what you read about guns or hear about guns. But you’re not allowed to try and ruin millions of people’s hobbies, studies, and (in some cases) way of putting food on the table purely because you don’t like what you’ve heard about the equipment they use to do so with.
*Well, technically the Puckle Defence Gun was a rapid-firing tripod mounted revolver-rifle with quick reload cylinders, but by late 18th century standards it was a machine gun. And they had volley guns too, which are near enough to a machine-gun for the purposes of this argument
Todderbob - I already told you several times - there is no longer militia as described in the Constitutions Second amendment. That quaint relic of the 18th century died long long ago.
Or volunteer fire departments, block watches, auxiliaries and other current forms of militia - armed and unarmed. The whole debate that militias (in terms of public defense and safety as used originally), organized and not, don’t exist today as they did almost 250 years ago baffles me. It ignores too much history and reality at the same time.
Freeze things to 178something? When did we move past it?
I would like to see factual evidence of what you are talking about here.
from Kopek
You are confusing community volunteerism with the militia whose functions have now been taken over by professionals and have been so for a very long time. Like Robert DeNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER… *“this is this, this isn’t something else.” *
I would like to see where, exactly, in the 2nd amendment, it states that it’s a collective and not singular right, and where it says anyone not in a militia may have their rights to own a firearm infringed.
Evidence that US citizens who were not part of the National Guard were drafted to fight the Vietnam War in the 1970s? Evidence that the legal authority of the Federal government to draft civilians comes from the Militia Act of 1903? Evidence that the authority of Congress to call forth “the militia” is stated in Article One, Section Eight, clauses fifteen and sixteen, of the Constitution?
I would say that you are in denial, except that I’m genuinely baffled by what you could possibly be in denial about.
NO Lumpy. Not the twisted way you just reframed the question. Answer it the way you posted it in the first place.
Sow us the evidence from the US Government that drafting someone into the army was the federal government insisting that they were now part of the MILITIA like you claim. You are confusing apples and oranges and attempting to pretend that they are one and the same. They are not.
So please, show us the statements from the federal government that people were being drafted into the MILITIA during the Viet Nam years.
Well, I don’t know that a brass tax will do much to raise any revenues, let alone control guns, but I’d be happy to provide some brass tacks discussion.
I’d like to see regular evaluation of gun competency, for example, in the form of marksmanship and safety tests by certified individuals.
