• @Zatore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The argument may be that driving isn’t in the constitution. You don’t need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I’m fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.

    • @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      05 months ago

      Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren’t in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.

      • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        05 months ago

        should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia.

        You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.

        If you’re talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an “Army” or a “Navy”.

        Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.

        They don’t define the constitutional meaning of “Militia” when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from “citizen” to “person subject to US law” or “able bodied” to “sound minded”, or “male” to “person”, or “17-45” to “16-60”.

        The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of “We The People”, and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.

        When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in “armies” or the “Navy”.

        The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don’t think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.

        You don’t get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.

        • @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          05 months ago

          You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.

          I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.

          • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            05 months ago

            You are.

            Your normal compensation is the enjoyment of “a free State”.

            If you are called forth to serve in the armed forces, your compensation is your paycheck.

            • @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              05 months ago

              Your normal compensation is the enjoyment of “a free State”.

              Very well. Please show me the court ruling to that effect.

              If you are called forth to serve in the armed forces, your compensation is your paycheck.

              So I am not in a well-regulated militia now? Why can’t you keep your story straight? If I am in a well-regulated militia now I am entitled to be paid for it, if vague promises of freedom are my payments then why do I get paid for jury duty, if I am not in a militia then why can I buy a gun?

              • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                0
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                My story is straight. The flaw is your lack of understanding the difference between “militia” and “armed forces”.

                The “armed forces” are the “armies” and the “Navy” provided for under Article I Section 8 clauses 12, 13, and 14. They are the professional forces hired by the government to serve its needs.

                The militia is not an “army” or the “Navy”. The militia is not an “armed service”. It is not regulated under clauses 12, 13, or 14.

                The “militia” is We The People. Under Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, Congress has the authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining (training) the militia, as well as calling us forth for purposes of enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. Additionally, under the 2nd Amendment, we are directly charged with providing the security of a free State.

                When we are “called forth” from the militia, we enter what the Constitution refers to as the “armies” or the “Navy”, and we receive a paycheck for our military service. We are now regulated under laws enacted in accordance with clauses 12, 13, and/or 14.

                When we are not called forth from the militia, we still have the obligation to provide the security of a free State, as described in the 2nd Amendment.

                Where you do not receive the benefits of a free State (you are incarcerated for draft dodging, for example) you are not obligated to provide the state’s security.

                You’re free to try to sue the government for additional compensation relating to your militia service, but whatever you end up receiving from the public, you will also end up being required to pay to the public.