Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[Open Bolt]

You can't prove your own assertation then?

Since I already have done so, it stands to reason that I can do it.

And your "proof" isn't proof at all, it's just YOUR OPINION>

That is incorrect. Logic is not a matter of opinion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Since I already have done so, it stands to reason that I can do it.



That is incorrect. Logic is not a matter of opinion.

It is when it isn't logical.

 

[Open Bolt]

It is when it isn't logical.

Logic happens to be logical.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Logic happens to be logical.

Yeah, like when I say "The Moon is a similar color to cheese, therefore it's LOGICAL that the Moon is made out of cheese".

 

[FA_Q2]

I think the Framers intended to train everyone. They made provisions for training people for militia duty.

Perhaps but I do not think you can show that to be the case in the context of the second amendment. There is a precedent for townships and the like to have everyone gather and train around the time of our founding however the second is a direct limit on federal power as all amendments in the BoR. I do not see how you can connect training directly with the personal right to bear arms.

The is doubly true when this is connected with the natural right to protect yourself.

Training certainly helps.

It certainly does.

That was not the question though. The question if it is a requirement or connected with the second in any shape or form. My point is that it is not. And that is a good thing, we do not need more reasons to limit the individual right, particularly when it will be the government that defines what 'training' means in this context.

As I said, the militia is inherently untrained. Even if many areas met and trained, that was never a requirement.

 

[schmidlap]

... By its very nature, the militia is not trained in warfare.

How is the "well-regulated militia" specified by the Founding Fathers well-regulated, and by whom, to comply with the Founding Father's specified requirement?

Clearly militiamen are not going to be able to repel a foreign invasion without full-auto weapons, grenades, and bazookas, etc.

So, any self-proclaimed "militia" can amass vast arsenals of advanced weaponry if the self-proclaimed "militia" deems them necessary to counter the ineluctably advancing weaponry of any theoretical "foreign invader."

The American populace is rendered defenseless in protecting itself against Weird Uncle Nutzo who can mince around wherever he feels like it with a surface-to-air missile and call it vigilance?

Wow, In the nineteenth century when states and local governments frequently passed and enforced gun ordinances— e.g., laws that banned the possession of firearms within city limits - Uncle Nutzo would have been weeing himself out of fear of a "foreign invasion" catching him unprepared.

Fanatical absolutists who promote unbridled permissiveness regarding firearms are as irrational as those who advocate universal proscription. All amendments to the Constitution are circumscribed by the rights of others.

 

[Open Bolt]

Perhaps but I do not think you can show that to be the case in the context of the second amendment. There is a precedent for townships and the like to have everyone gather and train around the time of our founding however the second is a direct limit on federal power as all amendments in the BoR.

The term "well regulated militia" means that the militia is a highly effective fighting force. And the militia would have to be well armed and well trained in order to be highly effective.

I do not see how you can connect training directly with the personal right to bear arms.
The is doubly true when this is connected with the natural right to protect yourself.

I wasn't connecting training to the right to keep and bear arms. I was connecting it to membership in the militia.

However, now that you have me thinking about the matter, the doctrine of Strict Scrutiny might allow for some basic safety training requirements for gun ownership.

It certainly does.
That was not the question though. The question if it is a requirement or connected with the second in any shape or form. My point is that it is not. And that is a good thing, we do not need more reasons to limit the individual right, particularly when it will be the government that defines what 'training' means in this context.

Strict Scrutiny has rigorous rules to prevent abusive laws. If training rules were mandated through Strict Scrutiny, there would be strong oversight by the courts to see that the requirements were not onerous.

As I said, the militia is inherently untrained. Even if many areas met and trained, that was never a requirement.

The Constitution provided provisions for training the militia:

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[Open Bolt]

So, any self-proclaimed "militia" can amass vast arsenals of advanced weaponry if the self-proclaimed "militia" deems them necessary to counter the ineluctably advancing weaponry of any theoretical "foreign invader."

No. The only militiamen who have a right to have infantry weapons are the ones who are actually organized by the government.

I still say that free speech allows private groups to proclaim themselves to be militia, but self proclamations don't create a status that the courts are required to recognize.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yeah, like when I say "The Moon is a similar color to cheese, therefore it's LOGICAL that the Moon is made out of cheese".

That's not logic. That is an erroneous assumption.

 

[FA_Q2]

How is the "well-regulated militia" specified by the Founding Fathers well-regulated, and by whom, to comply with the Founding Father's specified requirement?

As SCOTUS has reaffirmed, no such requirement exists or has ever existed within the second.

The prefatory clause does not negate both the fact that the second is a personal right or that the BoR is universally outlining prohibitions on federal power. Nothing in the BoR is a description of requirements to exercise personal rights but rather prohibitions on what rights the government cannot infringe on without a particularly strong reason to do so.

 

[FA_Q2]

The term "well regulated militia" means that the militia is a highly effective fighting force. And the militia would have to be well armed and well trained in order to be highly effective.

Except I can find no writing, musing or statements from the founders that this is what is meant by the prefatory clause.

I wasn't connecting training to the right to keep and bear arms. I was connecting it to membership in the militia.

However, now that you have me thinking about the matter, the doctrine of Strict Scrutiny might allow for some basic safety training requirements for gun ownership.

It could, yes.

I disagree that it should but all rights have limitations and I do not think this is a limitation that can be substantiated. The majority of personal gun owners are more trained and more proficient in the weapons they own than even most of the people in the military.

As a member of the AF, we 'trained' on our weapons once every 3 years. Yes, once every 3 years.

Before we deployed to a warzone, we would take that class one more time. It was all of 4 hours. Every civilian I worked with owned weapons and every single one of them without fail was more proficient than those that were active duty members.

Strict Scrutiny has rigorous rules to prevent abusive laws. If training rules were mandated through Strict Scrutiny, there would be strong oversight by the courts to see that the requirements were not onerous.

LOL.

Take one look at the gun laws in NY and then say that again with a straight face.

The Constitution provided provisions for training the militia:

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

When they are called upon, yes.

When they are not in service, then no.

 

[BlindBoo]

So what? What does that matter to deflecting lying commies like you?

Fuck you, jacketed bullets and other technological improvements over time made a cumbersome muzzle loading weapon into a hand held killing machine that was unimaginable at the time the Bill of Rights was conceived.

 

[BlindBoo]

What a blind, stupid boot licker you must be.
Why not move to Cuba already?

Another asshole chimes in. Obviously the militia requirement was in the amendment for a reason not just window dressing like the SC has ruled.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Well form some damn militias and pass regulations on them

I will if you trade your car in on a horse drawn wagon, with spokes, and a tongues.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Fuck you, jacketed bullets and other technological improvements over time made a cumbersome muzzle loading weapon into a hand held killing machine that was unimaginable at the time the Bill of Rights was conceived.

better trade your car in for a horse drawn buggy to end air pollution then.
But I'm sure you won't do that.

 

[BlindBoo]

The National Guard is not the militia. They are members of a standing army.



Agreed.

Congress had authority over the various state militias and they always were part of the national defense structure. Governors are in command of them. That's what morphed into the National Guard. Texas still has three other State militias as well that are independent of the Texas National Guard.

The Texas Militia are the militia forces of the State of Texas. It currently consists of the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.[1] It is administered by the Texas Military Department under command of the Texas Adjutant General.[2] Since 1846, the Texas Militia constitutes the entirety of the Texas Military Forces.[3][4][5]

 

[BlindBoo]

better trade your car in for a horse drawn buggy to end air pollution then.
But I'm sure you won't do that.

Why I support a warmer earth. We beat that new Ice Age back in the 70's didn't we?

Gimme back that 69 Charger 440 RT damn it.

 

[BlindBoo]

The one thing it cannot mean is well trained in war considering the militia was not to be a force of military members of any kind.

I disagree. Not only did they have to be proficient with their own weapons but they had to learn the basics of battlefield combat. Formations, picket lines, marching......taking orders....

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree. Not only did they have to be proficient with their own weapons but they had to learn the basics of battlefield combat. Formations, picket lines, marching......taking orders....

And SCOTUS has resoundingly rejected that idea not to mention that NOWHERE is the BoR anything but personal rights of the people.

It takes serious pretzel logic to declare this ONE right you do not like is somehow different. Nothing supports that idea.

 

[FA_Q2]

Another asshole chimes in. Obviously the militia requirement was in the amendment for a reason not just window dressing like the SC has ruled.

It was a prefatory clause.

That was the reason. No one has ever stated it was not in there for a reason.