How many members would like a firearms discussion area

Absolutely true. Congress wasn't granted any power over the arms of the People.

 

The People are the Militia.

Congress has the authority to regulate them.

 

No, just those in the militia, and just the arms of the militia. See Article 1, Section 8. Congress has the absolute power over every aspect of the arms of the militia. That means complete bans on their use by the militia.

Given Article 1, Section 8, the Second Amendment offers absolutely no protection to the arms of the militia at all. What then does it protect?

 

all able-bodies men between 18-45 are defacto part of the Militia.

all military veterans up to age 64 are part of the Militia.

 

Do women, the disabled, non-military veterans over 45 and military veterans over 64 have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Where does it say that all military veterans up to age 64 are part of the militia?

 

The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 246 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."[52] Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience. ("Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitation (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age. (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must – (1) be a citizen of the United States; and (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.")

These persons remain members of the militia until age 64.

 

You're reading into this law. They are eligible after age 45 to be in the National Guard, but it's not a requirement. Not all military veterans enter the National Guard. I didn't, but I was a member 9f the Individual Ready Reserve for 10 years after my discharge.

What about my first question?

 

Except for the simple fact that there is no evidence of this claim to be found anywhere in the history of the united states. Congress could not order militia members to surrender their privately owned firearms, nor could congress compel someone to acquire a firearm if there were none available. Congress did not implement a standardized design of firearm with regard to barrel length, bore diameter, or overall weight so that it was the only design that smiths were allowed to create, while simultaneously prohibiting all variations that might be seen. Congress did not dictate that no individual, absolutely none, could not own any firearms besides what was deemed to be suitable for militia duties. There was no lower or upper limit to the number of firearms that a member of the militia was allowed to own, with the only real restriction in place being what they could afford to purchase. Nor is there any evidence that those who were too young or too old for performing militia duties, or who were female, were legally prohibited from firearms ownership.

The claim on the part of yourself is that congress has the authority to arm the militia. Yet the wording of the militia act itself states that the individual, and only the individual, is responsible for arming themselves. This is because congress had no power, no authority, and no resources for creating the necessary arms to do such. Congress stated that the public shall arm itself, meaning the public armed itself with whatever firearm it deemed appropriate for such use. If someone owned a rifle that was appropriate for harvesting buffalo or even bigger game, that was what they would bring whereas someone else may be limited to a rifle suitable for squirrels and other small game animals.

 

Not true Ron.
You keep making things up to suit the stuff you would like to make reality.

 

Constitution says Congress has the authority to arm the Militia.

 

Eric Prince and Robert Mercer would love to see that privitized and is working on it.

 

And "are" working on it.

 

Indeed. Perfect for america, a private army for the aristocracy to control dissent.

 

You apparently in addition to ignoring grammar, Do not realize there are already mechanisms in place, to deal with dissenters and malcontents and undesirables, the National Guard and Private Security details.

 

And the united states congress dictated that the people who make up the militia will arm themselves with whatever equipment they privately possess.

 

To what extent do you think American politics is limited by pressure group? Do you think a more open approach to fire arms would be better?

 

Define open approach.

 

One without bought politicians? That would be a good start?

 

That's raising the bar pretty high. How does that one work?

 

Easy. You'd call such payments fraudulent and start arresting!

We're living in a particularly bollocksed world where the idea of principled politician is deemed to be raising the bar high

 

I'm not sure how that would work in the US unless you overhauled the entire election system. Do you know how it works here?

 

Yep and there is nothing peculiar to the US system that demands bought politician

 

And just how would you dismantle that system? Are you aware how the Roman Republic/Empire civil service/government ran?

 

Already said! And it is a sad state of affairs that you take bought politician as standard...

 

Pray tell exactly what is being referred to by yourself, and how is it even relevant to what was being discussed? Explain such. How do so-called "pressure groups" have anything to do with discussions pertaining what the militia act did and did not do?