The insanity continues...

Which is why the focus should be on "Lock and track"

 

The militia in colonial times consisted of every able bodied male in the country from 15 to 60. They were expected to furnish their own weapons and ammunition. In todays terms the upper limit would probably be closer to 80 at the upper end - we really do live that much longer - and since we're all about equality between the sexes we'd almost certainly include women. The militia in colonial times isnt the national guard.

 

The National Guard would almost qualify. Unfortunately, the federal government is able to take control of the State Guards at will, thus rendering them totally ineffective for the purpose of keeping the federal government in check.

 

You keep saying this. How, specifically, do you propose to do these things?

 

And better yet after 'fast and furious' why do you even think the government can do it?

 

This is a risk we will have to take. The first statesman of this nation did the same when they passed the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795. In both instances, the federal government reserved its Constitutional right to call forth the state militias.

 

Well everything is possible under that fake mule tough talkin' Rick Perry.

 

So the purpose of the second amendment is to "keep the federal government in check." That fantasy may have had some relevance in the 1700s when the government had muskets and the citizenry had muskets. But it ended when we dropped the first atomic bomb. Today's federal government has tanks and bombers and aircraft carriers and drones and chemical weapans and nuclear weapons. Today's citizenry has .... muskets. Do you honestly believe that if the federal government really wanted to subdue the citizenry, it couldn't? And yet it hasn't. You are living in Paranoid Delusion Land.

 

Hmm, must've missed that part. Where in the constitution does it authorize the federalization of state militias?

 

I'm in Paranoid Delusion Land? Then so were all the Founders, buddy. Better than living in Stupid Delusion Land, where you think a disarmed population is a viable way to preserve liberty. But you are right that the people are woefully underarmed. We need to rectify that, and restore the balance that the framers intended, and had at the time.

 

I'm female, just FYI.

So. It's time for anyone to be able to buy their own personal nuclear weapon, so that when the feds come for us, we can fight back. Got it.

 

In addition, the federal government is to organize, arm, and train the militia, whereas the state governments are to appoint officers and actually train the militia. Although with regards to the rights granted to the states, they are subject to the prescriptions of the Congress, or more broadly, the federal government:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

 

OK, I see now. The federal government still assumes the right to call the militias from the states (which at the time would have made sense, because there was no standing Army), and yet still keeps a standing Army, which the Founders didn't want, and considered antithetical to liberty. So, yet another power grab from the insatiable federal government, keeping any and all military they can squeeze out of the situation. Figures.

 

Whether the Founders disliked a standing army is irrelevant. Based upon a literal reading of the Constitution, the federal government is within its rights to require states to form militias subject to their prescriptions. In addition, the federal government is Constitutionally obligated to organize the militia, and in retrospect to gun control, this can mean requiring all adult citizens who own or seek to own firearms to meet certain standards of functionality and competency as part of the National Guard. It may also impose particular standards on what firearms they may own. In fact, this is what the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1795 exactly did. It is also one of the major reasons why George Washington was able to quell the Whiskey Rebellion.

In addition, in no way is this counterintuitive to the decisions and majority opinions of DC v. Heller or McDonald v. Chicago. Justice Scalia in the former stated that the operative clause, that being a well-regulated militia did not limit the individual right to keep and bear arms, but could in the case of the mentally ill (the CT shooter or his mother?), felons, and in the case of highly dangerous weapons (assault weapons?). With regards to the latter, this would also be imposed on the state level.

 

Can't afford one of these?



Try one of these:



He asks only for some food and positive attention. AS USUAL THE AMERICANS FAIL TO SEE THE OBVIOUS SOLUTIONS. OR MAYBE I AM JUST A €£¥#%^ GENIUS.

 

So, the real answer is what I had originally envisioned. Private militias which cannot be federalized, not state ones. Only private militias can perfom the duty that the 2nd Amendment calls for. Your army becomes worse than useless if your enemy can make it his army.

 

Unfortunately, even our first statesmen deviate from your sentiments. As I say before, the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1795 encompass the very same proposals you disagree with. This means once our Founders leave the Constitutional Convention, they apply the Second Amendment in a way contrary to your views. After all, one of the greatest Founders of them all, George Washington, explicitly uses the Militia Act of 1792 to federalize the militia to quell the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

But you want to have it both ways: It's "irrelevant" what the founders thought about standing Armies, you say, but yet their views ARE supposed to matter on anything that strengthens federal power. There needs to be a balance of power, and the feds have already breached their part of the contract. So even though I would like to go with original intent, that is not possible, because it has already been violated, and We (the People) have to play catch-up.

 

Yep, you can bow to Big Bro or you can arm teachers. There is no other way.

 

It is irrelevant as to the application of the Constitution by the Founders regarding the militia. If we are strictly looking at the relationship between guns, gun control, and the militia, then the Founders' views on the militia are all that matters. If you want to get into the idea of a standing army, then I agree that their views matter. In fact, I advocate for a literal and original intent interpretation of such a provision, as it would require that our ground operations are quick and decisive (shades of the Powell Doctrine). On the other hand, I advocate for an expansive Navy and Air Force. Either way, it is in these areas of our military is developing revolutionary technology.

 

But you are taking those views of the militia out of context. The context in which those views were formed, and on which they were based, was one in which the Federal government had no standing army. Calling up the militia would have been the only way to perform quick military actions. This is not the case today because, in opposition to the whole intent, we do have a standing military. This creates a situation where a powerful, independent militia is even more necessary.

 

Well, I disagree with a standing army. It is not conducive to a strong military doctrine like the Powell Doctrine. I would much rather have a large reserve force in the National Guard that is capable of being called up in large numbers during foreign interventions. On the other hand, I would bolster Navy and Air Force personnel that could conduct bombing campaigns early on in a conflict.