Since I already have done so, it stands to reason that I can do it.You can't prove your own assertation then?
That is incorrect. Logic is not a matter of opinion.And your "proof" isn't proof at all, it's just YOUR OPINION>
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Since I already have done so, it stands to reason that I can do it.You can't prove your own assertation then?
That is incorrect. Logic is not a matter of opinion.And your "proof" isn't proof at all, it's just YOUR OPINION>
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.
Logic happens to be logical.It is when it isn't logical.
Logic happens to be logical.
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.I think the Framers intended to train everyone. They made provisions for training people for militia duty.
It certainly does.Training certainly helps.
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?... By its very nature, the militia is not trained in warfare.
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."Open Bolt said:Clearly militiamen are not going to be able to repel a foreign invasion without full-auto weapons, grenades, and bazookas, etc.
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.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 wasn't connecting training to the right to keep and bear arms. I was connecting it to membership in the militia.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.
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.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.
The Constitution provided provisions for training the militia:As I said, the militia is inherently untrained. Even if many areas met and trained, that was never a requirement.
No. The only militiamen who have a right to have infantry weapons are the ones who are actually organized by the government.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."
That's not logic. That is an erroneous assumption.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".
As SCOTUS has reaffirmed, no such requirement exists or has ever existed within the second.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?
Except I can find no writing, musing or statements from the founders that this is what is meant by the prefatory clause.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.
It could, yes.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.
LOL.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.
When they are called upon, yes.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;
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.So what? What does that matter to deflecting lying commies like you?
Another asshole chimes in. Obviously the militia requirement was in the amendment for a reason not just window dressing like the SC has ruled.What a blind, stupid boot licker you must be.
Why not move to Cuba already?
I will if you trade your car in on a horse drawn wagon, with spokes, and a tongues.Well form some damn militias and pass regulations on them
better trade your car in for a horse drawn buggy to end air pollution then.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.
The National Guard is not the militia. They are members of a standing army.
Agreed.
Why I support a warmer earth. We beat that new Ice Age back in the 70's didn't we?better trade your car in for a horse drawn buggy to end air pollution then.
But I'm sure you won't do that.
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....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.
And SCOTUS has resoundingly rejected that idea not to mention that NOWHERE is the BoR anything but personal rights of the people.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....
It was a prefatory clause.Another asshole chimes in. Obviously the militia requirement was in the amendment for a reason not just window dressing like the SC has ruled.