Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On April 21 2019 19:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What would you mean by "age gating"? You mean age restriction? For firearms? Surely USA already has age restrictions for gun ownership. I really cannot imagine otherwise.
Some yes, but for familial transfers, nope. One of my friends got his first gun at ~4 y.o. They have guns that are basically designed for small children.
(this is bad gun safety being imbued into the child btw)
On April 21 2019 20:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I can see that a maximum age restriction for gun ownership would be undesirable for Sermakola's politics. Still, I cannot understand why he would describe it as age gating, when presumably English is his first language, instead of just writing plainly what he meant. Assuming that your interpretation is correct.
It is strange though, I would had presumed that Sermakola would be one of those who would had loved to tie gun ownership with the national guard; a grand patriotic display if there ever was one. That a such a right should come with the patriotic duty to the country.
Oh and btw, I have no idea what a Virginian battle flag is, but I think it is rather obvious that Sermakola were warned for writing "suck it."
I ment age-gating because it was the most accurate description I believe. You exit gates as well as enter them after all. It would be desirable for my politics that there would be a maximum age for gun ownership because it would piss off everyone above that age that used to have their constitutional rights and easily get struck down for ageism. You don't hate old people do you?
I'm going to ignore your weird dig at my patriotism for not supporting a mandatory paramilitary organization for gun owners. I'm baffled that you believe military training, automatic weapons, and government pay should go to people you don't agree with politically.
Battle flags were important during nepolionic warfare. They were like the eagles of rome and were used to coordinate the unit. I learned about that and I went to school in america.
What does "suck it" got to do with "nepolionic warfare" lol.
And no, age-gating is hardly an accurate description when everyone is left wondering what you are actually intending to describe.
And for your information, I would prefer the switzerland model as a model for gun ownership, rather than the USA model for gun ownership. It's not baffling at all.
On April 21 2019 22:33 Sermokala wrote: You don't hate old people do you?
WTF is this? If this is a joke add something to denote it please.
On April 21 2019 08:04 Danglars wrote: The Virginia flag is a good symbolic example. Virtue, armed, standing on top of a defeated tyrant that had a flail and a crown.
The nation prior to the Constitution wasn't about to elect a king that would raise up an army and use its might to dominate the other branches of the federal government and the states. No way did colonists just fight a revolutionary war to just elect a king closer to home but in the same spirit as George III. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay sold the constitution to these rightly skeptical state assemblies as containing the necessary protections to states from the feds. The militia and the loyalties of the militia were one of them.
The alternative is absolutely idiotic. It presumes the people writing at length to sell the Constitution as something good were double-dealing their readers. They already knew Congress was the real leader, so it goes, and talked about militias resisting the federal armies in a massive act of deceit. Not so.
The citizen has one last line of defense against a federal government that enforces its will on them from afar. I include either congress with compliant courts or ignored courts, or the executive with the same. The very constitution that creates the legislative, executive, and judicial also preserves to the citizen his or her right to keep and bear arms. I don't really see this defense being necessary in my lifetime, expressly because the existence of the last line of defense makes politicians tread a little carefully. You better believe that if gun control goes too far and makes pistols and shotguns the only lawful weapons to own, you're going to see widespread civil disobedience and crisis.
Article 1, section 8, clause 15: [Congress has the power to] provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Therefore, Congress can call the militia to serve the federal government. In that case the president is its commander in chief. Your claims regarding the militia being solely for defense against the federal government are irrefutably incorrect. This is the plain text of the constitution.
Edit: it does seem as though your posts argue that defense against the federal government is the point of the militia. But at the least, that's not the only point of the militia.
But these militias that the federal government is calling is still inherently a community and state entity. That the federal government needs to "call" for the militia inherently shows that it is not a federal entity and not at the least under federal justification. That they need to be "called" also makes it firmly I would argue optional for these militias to turn out.
That they were renamed to be national guard units in 1903 to distinguish them as federalizeable units is important.
An interesting point regarding state governments. Certainly they have a constitutional role to play with the militia. I might actually look into this more. My question is whether the framers understood the militia to be the source of mandatory conscription. I.e., Congress' power to "call up the militia" is what grants Congress the power to force citizens to become a member of a fighting force.
On April 21 2019 22:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What does "suck it" got to do with "nepolionic warfare" lol.
And no, age-gating is hardly an accurate description when everyone is left wondering what you are actually intending to describe.
And for your information, I would prefer the switzerland model as a model for gun ownership, rather than the USA model for gun ownership. It's not baffling at all.
On April 21 2019 22:33 Sermokala wrote: You don't hate old people do you?
WTF is this? If this is a joke add something to denote it please.
The suck it line was in relation to us keeping the Virginian battle flag despite the Congress presidency and pentagon telling us to give it back to them.
What you were proposing is not in line with the switzerland model what you were proposing was that a third of the population swinging heavily conservative should be given military training. The swiss and Isreali models don't descriminate on who is conscripted into the military.
Its the same brand of sarcasm that you had with your dig on me about my patriotism.
On April 21 2019 08:04 Danglars wrote: The Virginia flag is a good symbolic example. Virtue, armed, standing on top of a defeated tyrant that had a flail and a crown.
The nation prior to the Constitution wasn't about to elect a king that would raise up an army and use its might to dominate the other branches of the federal government and the states. No way did colonists just fight a revolutionary war to just elect a king closer to home but in the same spirit as George III. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay sold the constitution to these rightly skeptical state assemblies as containing the necessary protections to states from the feds. The militia and the loyalties of the militia were one of them.
The alternative is absolutely idiotic. It presumes the people writing at length to sell the Constitution as something good were double-dealing their readers. They already knew Congress was the real leader, so it goes, and talked about militias resisting the federal armies in a massive act of deceit. Not so.
The citizen has one last line of defense against a federal government that enforces its will on them from afar. I include either congress with compliant courts or ignored courts, or the executive with the same. The very constitution that creates the legislative, executive, and judicial also preserves to the citizen his or her right to keep and bear arms. I don't really see this defense being necessary in my lifetime, expressly because the existence of the last line of defense makes politicians tread a little carefully. You better believe that if gun control goes too far and makes pistols and shotguns the only lawful weapons to own, you're going to see widespread civil disobedience and crisis.
Article 1, section 8, clause 15: [Congress has the power to] provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Therefore, Congress can call the militia to serve the federal government. In that case the president is its commander in chief. Your claims regarding the militia being solely for defense against the federal government are irrefutably incorrect. This is the plain text of the constitution.
Edit: it does seem as though your posts argue that defense against the federal government is the point of the militia. But at the least, that's not the only point of the militia.
But these militias that the federal government is calling is still inherently a community and state entity. That the federal government needs to "call" for the militia inherently shows that it is not a federal entity and not at the least under federal justification. That they need to be "called" also makes it firmly I would argue optional for these militias to turn out.
That they were renamed to be national guard units in 1903 to distinguish them as federalizeable units is important.
An interesting point regarding state governments. Certainly they have a constitutional role to play with the militia. I might actually look into this more. My question is whether the framers understood the militia to be the source of mandatory conscription. I.e., Congress' power to "call up the militia" is what grants Congress the power to force citizens to become a member of a fighting force.
I just don't see how its possible for it to be considered mandatory or conscription. Sweden and Prussia had conscription at the time with parts of the year being devoted to training but this was never codified in the constitution what the federal government expected to get from "calling the militia".
The strongest argument I would make is the fact that these were in parts literal self defence forces that fought native American raids on the borders. The government had no mechanism to say how much of the militia it wanted to strip from the frontier.
Interestingly the 1903 Militia Act actually provided for two different militias, one being the national guard and the other being all other males aged 18-45. The latter group sounds a lot like the draft. The able bodied male population in the US is a group of citizen soldiers who have the right to own guns so that they are prepared to serve in the militia. However the militia is distinct from the federal army, and it seems as though the militia is strictly for defending the homeland. So I would say that for any draft that concerns "suppressing insurrections" or "repelling invasions," gun owners should be first in line. The link between the second amendment and article I (the "militia") is what mandates that they be first in line.
You ignore completely this entire argument we have had to get right back to where you started. I have provided historical examples of what was conscription at the time and what was the militia at the time. I have provided what historical evidence has shown what the Militia was in practice at the time of the founding fathers and what it was when it was put to the test in the civil war. I have provided what the president was for the 1903 Militia act. You can't even bring yourself to come up with the laws for conscription congress has passed in the meantime.
All this I did while conceding your interpretation of the second amendment for the sake of a discussion. Will you do anything at all in return to reward anyone else for their interaction with you?
On April 23 2019 01:51 Sermokala wrote: You ignore completely this entire argument we have had to get right back to where you started. I have provided historical examples of what was conscription at the time and what was the militia at the time. I have provided what historical evidence has shown what the Militia was in practice at the time of the founding fathers and what it was when it was put to the test in the civil war. I have provided what the president was for the 1903 Militia act. You can't even bring yourself to come up with the laws for conscription congress has passed in the meantime.
All this I did while conceding your interpretation of the second amendment for the sake of a discussion. Will you do anything at all in return to reward anyone else for their interaction with you?
The historical practice of the draft and the militia, and especially the fact that gun owners have never been first in line before, is potentially a weak point for my argument. My response would be that, despite that being the historical practice, it was constitutionally incorrect. The Supreme Court should have intervened and made gun owners first in line. The Constitution mandates a certain structure to the fighting forces of the country, and that structure means that gun owners - that is, citizen soldiers - should be first in line for conscription when the homeland needs to be defended.
On April 21 2019 22:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What does "suck it" got to do with "nepolionic warfare" lol.
And no, age-gating is hardly an accurate description when everyone is left wondering what you are actually intending to describe.
And for your information, I would prefer the switzerland model as a model for gun ownership, rather than the USA model for gun ownership. It's not baffling at all.
On April 21 2019 22:33 Sermokala wrote: You don't hate old people do you?
WTF is this? If this is a joke add something to denote it please.
The suck it line was in relation to us keeping the Virginian battle flag despite the Congress presidency and pentagon telling us to give it back to them.
What you were proposing is not in line with the switzerland model what you were proposing was that a third of the population swinging heavily conservative should be given military training. The swiss and Isreali models don't descriminate on who is conscripted into the military.
Its the same brand of sarcasm that you had with your dig on me about my patriotism.
On April 21 2019 08:04 Danglars wrote: The Virginia flag is a good symbolic example. Virtue, armed, standing on top of a defeated tyrant that had a flail and a crown.
The nation prior to the Constitution wasn't about to elect a king that would raise up an army and use its might to dominate the other branches of the federal government and the states. No way did colonists just fight a revolutionary war to just elect a king closer to home but in the same spirit as George III. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay sold the constitution to these rightly skeptical state assemblies as containing the necessary protections to states from the feds. The militia and the loyalties of the militia were one of them.
The alternative is absolutely idiotic. It presumes the people writing at length to sell the Constitution as something good were double-dealing their readers. They already knew Congress was the real leader, so it goes, and talked about militias resisting the federal armies in a massive act of deceit. Not so.
The citizen has one last line of defense against a federal government that enforces its will on them from afar. I include either congress with compliant courts or ignored courts, or the executive with the same. The very constitution that creates the legislative, executive, and judicial also preserves to the citizen his or her right to keep and bear arms. I don't really see this defense being necessary in my lifetime, expressly because the existence of the last line of defense makes politicians tread a little carefully. You better believe that if gun control goes too far and makes pistols and shotguns the only lawful weapons to own, you're going to see widespread civil disobedience and crisis.
Article 1, section 8, clause 15: [Congress has the power to] provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
Therefore, Congress can call the militia to serve the federal government. In that case the president is its commander in chief. Your claims regarding the militia being solely for defense against the federal government are irrefutably incorrect. This is the plain text of the constitution.
Edit: it does seem as though your posts argue that defense against the federal government is the point of the militia. But at the least, that's not the only point of the militia.
But these militias that the federal government is calling is still inherently a community and state entity. That the federal government needs to "call" for the militia inherently shows that it is not a federal entity and not at the least under federal justification. That they need to be "called" also makes it firmly I would argue optional for these militias to turn out.
That they were renamed to be national guard units in 1903 to distinguish them as federalizeable units is important.
An interesting point regarding state governments. Certainly they have a constitutional role to play with the militia. I might actually look into this more. My question is whether the framers understood the militia to be the source of mandatory conscription. I.e., Congress' power to "call up the militia" is what grants Congress the power to force citizens to become a member of a fighting force.
I just don't see how its possible for it to be considered mandatory or conscription. Sweden and Prussia had conscription at the time with parts of the year being devoted to training but this was never codified in the constitution what the federal government expected to get from "calling the militia".
The strongest argument I would make is the fact that these were in parts literal self defence forces that fought native American raids on the borders. The government had no mechanism to say how much of the militia it wanted to strip from the frontier.
It's obvious that you are warned because you wrote "suck it". I'm not interested in your personal interpretation of the mythology of a random flag that you claim is important because of "nepolionic warfare".
That the right to bear arms would come with the duty to be called up by an interpretation of militia would normally be something that I would had though you would had support. It's not a dig at your patriotism (an ugly word anyways), that's just your imagination. I would had thought you would be proud of such a belief that you often expouse here on the forums. But it appears that in your case a right in the constitution is infallible, but the duties to be borned by that right is merely to be interpreted away.
On April 23 2019 01:51 Sermokala wrote: You ignore completely this entire argument we have had to get right back to where you started. I have provided historical examples of what was conscription at the time and what was the militia at the time. I have provided what historical evidence has shown what the Militia was in practice at the time of the founding fathers and what it was when it was put to the test in the civil war. I have provided what the president was for the 1903 Militia act. You can't even bring yourself to come up with the laws for conscription congress has passed in the meantime.
All this I did while conceding your interpretation of the second amendment for the sake of a discussion. Will you do anything at all in return to reward anyone else for their interaction with you?
The historical practice of the draft and the militia, and especially the fact that gun owners have never been first in line before, is potentially a weak point for my argument. My response would be that, despite that being the historical practice, it was constitutionally incorrect. The Supreme Court should have intervened and made gun owners first in line. The Constitution mandates a certain structure to the fighting forces of the country, and that structure means that gun owners - that is, citizen soldiers - should be first in line for conscription when the homeland needs to be defended.
How do you get it being constitutionally incorrect? I get how you admit the possible intent or the historical precedent doesn't fit well with your idea but even theoretically it falls apart. The constitution makes no mention of conscription despite it already being a practice. It uses the softest of languages to refer to its power over the militia. It mandates nothing about the structure of the militia and even if we agreed that gun ownership was tied in anyway to militia membership any possible interpretation of a standing militia would be an incredible mess to manage even with today's technology.
The implications to the gun control argument would be disastrous. You wouldn't be able to justify why you shouldn't have crew served weapons grenades and rockets. Automatic weapons are for the national interest. Bullet proof vests and helmets are needed for my continued rights to family heirlooms. Those city dwellers who have none of this shouldn't feel threatened by any of this as those federal subsidies are for them to feel safe.
On April 23 2019 01:51 Sermokala wrote: You ignore completely this entire argument we have had to get right back to where you started. I have provided historical examples of what was conscription at the time and what was the militia at the time. I have provided what historical evidence has shown what the Militia was in practice at the time of the founding fathers and what it was when it was put to the test in the civil war. I have provided what the president was for the 1903 Militia act. You can't even bring yourself to come up with the laws for conscription congress has passed in the meantime.
All this I did while conceding your interpretation of the second amendment for the sake of a discussion. Will you do anything at all in return to reward anyone else for their interaction with you?
The historical practice of the draft and the militia, and especially the fact that gun owners have never been first in line before, is potentially a weak point for my argument. My response would be that, despite that being the historical practice, it was constitutionally incorrect. The Supreme Court should have intervened and made gun owners first in line. The Constitution mandates a certain structure to the fighting forces of the country, and that structure means that gun owners - that is, citizen soldiers - should be first in line for conscription when the homeland needs to be defended.
How do you get it being constitutionally incorrect? I get how you admit the possible intent or the historical precedent doesn't fit well with your idea but even theoretically it falls apart. The constitution makes no mention of conscription despite it already being a practice. It uses the softest of languages to refer to its power over the militia. It mandates nothing about the structure of the militia and even if we agreed that gun ownership was tied in anyway to militia membership any possible interpretation of a standing militia would be an incredible mess to manage even with today's technology.
The implications to the gun control argument would be disastrous. You wouldn't be able to justify why you shouldn't have crew served weapons grenades and rockets. Automatic weapons are for the national interest. Bullet proof vests and helmets are needed for my continued rights to family heirlooms. Those city dwellers who have none of this shouldn't feel threatened by any of this as those federal subsidies are for them to feel safe.
I'm sure there would be major problems for how it would all be carried out. I'm more just referring to the legality of it. In theory, constitutional law should override any other concerns, since it is the supreme law of the land.
Regarding the constitution, certainly it doesn't mention conscription. But I wouldn't say it uses the softest of language. Calling up the militia means beinging it into the service of the federal government. But, my argument involves a bit of abstraction; it's certainly not a slam dunk case. Especially because there is a supreme court case from the WWI era that is directly on point, and it undermines my argument entirely ("The Selective Draft Law Cases"). So we would need to get that obstacle out of the way, because it was incorrectly decided and should be overruled.
The case makes the point that Congress's power to "raise armies," which is separate from its power to "call up the militia," provides absolute power by itself to conscript people into the federal army. It says essentially that calling up the militia is more of a secondary power, to be used if Congress, in its own discretion, deems it a better idea than raising an army. I am not sure that the historical evidence leads to that conclusion, though. The framers assumed that the militia would be the first source of troops in the case of defending the homeland. for example in 1792, Congress passed the militia act which made all able bodied males 18-45 yo members of the militia, and required them to purchase a gun. Theres no way to interpret other than that the framers of the constitution understood the militia to be first in line for conscription. This is why Congress can call up the militia- to bring a ready source of troops into the service of the federal government in case of rebellion or invasion. Congress' power to raise armies should be read as entailing the calling up of the militia, in addition to other means of raising forces. But the militia was the primary and obvious first source of troops to defend the homeland. Also consider that the president is to be the "commander in chief" of the militia when called up. This implies a federal military function to be performed by the militia.
The fact that the 1792 act required all militia members to purchase guns implies that militia readiness entails gun ownership. Interestingly, it remains the law today that all able bodied males 18-45 yo are members of the militia (1903 militia act). While they are not required to purchase guns, we can infer from the founders' intent that gun owners were to be the first source of manpower to defend the homeland. It follows that in the modern day, in which we have a large body of able bodied males who own guns (who are citizen soldiers by virtue of the second amendment), the population of Male gun owners aged 18-45 should be first in line for conscription in the event of insurrection or invasion.
The historical evidence overwhelmingly supports the notion that the militia was intended to be the first source of troops in case of insurrection or invasion. The system was designed this way as a check on the federal governments power to raise an army. The militia is, to an extent, influenced and controlled by the states, though it can be called up by the federal govt in case of insurrection or invasion. This is unlike the federal army, which is beholden only to the national government. The framers wanted to prevent the federal government from having absolute power to raise an army - if it could do that, it would have the power to be tyrannical. Instead, the federal government must resort first to calling up the militia. For example, Alexander Hamilton said this in Federalist No. 29:
"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of [Congress]. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
...
In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association."
He is saying that the militia was designed to be the first source of troops. The federal army would be resorted to "if the federal government cannot avail itself of the militia." The militia's purpose is for the common defense - which is why Congress was given the power to call it up. Note how the second amendment says that a militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." The purpose of gun ownership is to provide for the common defense.
I get what you are saying (and a tidbit that my opinion is developing as is yours as we go through this) but everything you present shows a clear sense of doubt by the federal government that it will get this militia support.
It might be the first source of manpower consulted but I don't see in any way a compulsory mandate for membership in a militia or a mandate for compulsory service. Let alone any conection of the above to a persons continued ability to own a gun.
As a conclusion there is nothing stopping one from simply assuming the rights associated with the militia without any responsibility to the militia.
On April 27 2019 05:32 Sermokala wrote: I get what you are saying (and a tidbit that my opinion is developing as is yours as we go through this) but everything you present shows a clear sense of doubt by the federal government that it will get this militia support.
It might be the first source of manpower consulted but I don't see in any way a compulsory mandate for membership in a militia or a mandate for compulsory service. Let alone any conection of the above to a persons continued ability to own a gun.
As a conclusion there is nothing stopping one from simply assuming the rights associated with the militia without any responsibility to the militia.
First I have really enjoyed this back and forth and feel like I know a lot more because of it so thank you you two.
Second this bolded statement I think is the biggest issue with gun ownership in the states right now. People have the right but none of the responsibility. As a society we understand that rights come with responsibilities and it is crazy that something as potentially dangerous as gun ownership has escaped this basic principal.
I think we can both agree that the founders understanding of what the militia would be and how it would function for the union was fundamentally flawed as it showed from the war of 1812 and even moreso the civil war.
On April 27 2019 05:32 Sermokala wrote: I get what you are saying (and a tidbit that my opinion is developing as is yours as we go through this) but everything you present shows a clear sense of doubt by the federal government that it will get this militia support.
It might be the first source of manpower consulted but I don't see in any way a compulsory mandate for membership in a militia or a mandate for compulsory service. Let alone any conection of the above to a persons continued ability to own a gun.
As a conclusion there is nothing stopping one from simply assuming the rights associated with the militia without any responsibility to the militia.
A good point. The responsibility part is something I need to shore up. One thing I would say is that 1792 Militia Act was pretty contemporaneous with the 2A. So it demonstrates the understanding of the framers of the 2A. And it says that gun ownership was mandatory for militia members, and all able bodied males were militia members. One could read that to mean that gun ownership entails militia membership, under the framers' understanding. Also There are apparently some prominent legal scholars who have said that the historical evidence shows that the militia was intended to be for conscription purposes for the common defense. The federal army, on the other hand, was intended to entail voluntary enlistment.
I mean if you want to make vauge hypothetical arguments I guess you could say that its not just protection from the current form of government but protection from any future government that we would need protection from. Be that coming from our government or from a foreign power.
I would I guess have to make the argument that the people who are currently legally exercising their second amendment rights should be treated statistically different than those that don't legally exercise their second amendment rights in any argument about gun control?
EPT
