I like the Swiss model, every citizen a soldier. When you turn 18 you go for 6 months of training, you are issued an assault rifle and field gear. You take it home at the end of your training. Every year you muster with you gear for two weeks of refresher.
No you're not. You're here to troll. This is just one of several so called "militia" threads. Nothing new here. It has nada to do with gun control and for any purposes, whatever you think a militia is or how it should train in meaningless in the scheme of things.
As a voter I believe my opinion matters. Your mileage may vary. Let us know if you have anything to add to the debate
Your opinion or mine for that matter on this issue is meaningless in the scheme of things. It's also not up for a vote in any form or fashion. Therefore what you think is not really part of the equation.
Thank you for your opinion. I am voting for someone who will likely appoint two Supreme Court justices so I disagree
But you said SCOTUS ruled that an individuals right to keep and bear arms is independent of a militia so why would mandatory firearms training be necessary for a well regulated militia? I would think militia training for militia would be mandatory...not something independent of the militia like private ownership and possession. Seems your OP is framed wrong, but I fixed it for you. Militia people need militia training, private citizens are independent of militia as you stated so they don't need mandatory training. You are welcome.
Most people believe the militia consists of all able bodied people over 17. So only those people need training. Lol
It's not up for a vote, therefore it's moot. It's also not an opinion. The individual right to own firearms is already settled law. This is a troll thread and nothing more. But you can take it elsewhere besides here. Maybe the fantasy section. You can tell us all about your nonexistant law enforcement career.
Look you don't want to be here and you offer nothing. We get it. When Hillary changes the court anything is on the table. You don't need to believe that. You also don't need to believe 2 plus 2 is 4. Lol
The person who offers nothing is you. Your thread is trolling and offers nothing of substance. Besides you weren't military and you weren't LEO.
This is not personal. If you have nothing to offer to the debate I request politely for you to just move on
Even without an in depth search, it is quite easy to find numerous examples of police officers demonstrating poor training and discipline. The number of rounds discharged in the line of duty, compared to the number of rounds that actually hit the intended target, is quite abysmal. Police officers demonstrate a willingness to deploy deadly force under the weakest of pretenses, on the weakest of evidence, in encounters where there is no threat to either officer safety or private citizens. They have shot innocent bystanders, themselves, each other, and have often left their firearms where they can and have been stolen. The last matter has reached the point where the state of California has needed to enact legislation dictating that even police officers must keep their firearms secured when they are not in their vehicles.
No you are misunderstanding the issue. Read the Constitution and see how this works. Article I section 8 says: 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. Congress has used this power to create the national guard system. This is the organized militia, and Id submit its very well trained. In fact, it is armed by Congress, organized by Congress, disciplined by Congress, and trained by each state under the system Congress has establishedofficered by men chosen by the states. Each state national guard militia is under the command of the governoruntil Congress and the President usurp that command. The militia is also a voluntary organization. Yes, as a male citizen of the appropriate age I am (by both statue and tradition) a member of the unorganized militia by default. But my participation in the active, organized militia system is wholly voluntaryand my status as a member of the unorganized militia does not give Congress any power over my private arms. And if I volunteer (or assuming for purposes of this analogy Congress can pass a law requiring me to participate in militia service) then Congress has the power to arm and train mefor every arm in the possession of the organized militia is controlled by Congress. No individual citizen has any say in what, if any, weapon he or she will be given by Congress for militia serviceand no state has the power to arm its militia members absent Congress allowing it. But that control is only for arms used in militia service provided and authorized by Congressit has nothing to do with the other arms I choose to have outside of militia service as a consequence of the free exercise of a right (indeed the very word right means an activity beyond the control of Congress). Your argument is nothing more than an attempt to limit the RKBA to militia usefulness as a means of establishing a government controlled pre-condition for the free exercise of a right. The government can no more require a certificate of having completed mandatory firearm training for the RKBA than you can require passing a reading test to buy books or winning a mock debate competition before you would allow freedom of speech or a passing a spelling test before you would allow someone the freedom of press. It is a false argument which I believe stems from a misunderstanding of the Constitutions re-organization of the militia power.
You are free to make the distinction between the organized and unorganized militia. The founders made no such distinction. They considered the militia to be all of the able bodied men over age 17. There is no organized or unorganized militia. There is the militia. And ours is completely and utterly not well regulated
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter as to the meaning of the constitution. They don't seem to agree with you.
When groups form the Militia, Democrats get wired and want their guns taken from them. They accuse them of things like being Nazis. The Bill of rights was a pledge to the public. Part of the pledge is our rights to firearms shall not be infringed. If the pledge was to women, that their right to an abortion can't be infringed on, the Democrats would scurry out from cabinets like cockroaches to defend it as meaning you can't pass anti abortion laws. But on guns, they cling to their boy scout knives and fire making tools, quite unaware the Democrats themselves infringe on human rights.
