• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Again, your line of reasoning ignores the “trained” aspect of a Militia,

    10USC246 is narrower than the constitutional meaning. It is the legislative definition of “militia”, and defines two classes of that militia. Your “trained” qualification accepts only one of those two classes, not both. Your definition conflicts with even the legislative definition, let alone the broader constitutional meaning.

    You invented the “trained” qualification. Pulled it straight out of thin air, with no constitutional, legal, contemporary, or even semantic basis. I didn’t ignore the “trained” part. I flat out rejected it.

    Now, if you will accept a minor change from “trained” to “trainable”, your definition expands to include both classes of the militia as defined in 10USC246, and becomes reasonably close to the constitutional meanings of both “militia” and “the people”.

    If you want to suggest that the state-based National Guard should train all adults in “military exercise”, including the responsible operation of firearms, you’ll hear nothing but support from me.

    As you have used the term, “adults” is synonymous with the constitutional meaning of “militia”. Any time you read the word “militia” in the constitution, you can substitute the meaning of the word “adults” as you have used that term.

    To provide for calling forth the militia adults to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia adults, 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 adults according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    A [W]ell regulated Militia Adults, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Driver’s Ed is actually a great parallel.

    Agreed, but the sine qua non of my driver’s Ed amendment was “squirrels”. In guaranteeing the right to “squirrels” instead of those who will be providing the safe operation of a vehicle, the amendment I provided is nonsensical. The driver’s Ed requirement only makes sense when the right is afforded to the same entity that will be exercising it.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You invented the “trained” qualification. Pulled it straight out of thin air

      I pulled it straight out of the dictionary, where the word “Militia” is defined.

      Now, if you will accept a minor change from “trained” to “trainable”, your definition expands to include both classes of the militia as defined in 10USC246, and becomes reasonably close to the constitutional meanings of both “militia” and “the people”.

      You’re pulling this straight out of thin air, so I flat out reject it.

      This is going nowhere. If the words were synonymous, they wouldn’t have bothered to use the word Militia. Full stop. I’m not going to continue to entertain your fantasies of what the drafters really meant, inventing your own definitions of words that have literal written definitions.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I pulled it straight out of the dictionary, where the word “Militia” is defined.

        And I demonstrated, repeatedly, how that definition is flawed, and does not reflect how the word is used in either the constitution or legislation. Your definition specifically excludes certain individuals that the law (10 USC 246) specifically includes. You have provided no argument as to why 10 USC 246 - an act of Congress - should be rejected, and replaced by the opinion of Mr. Johnson, a private individual.

        While you may have other routes forward, the only options I can see to further your argument are to adopt a definition that is not fundamentally incompatible with 10 USC 246, or you can demonstrate that this part of 10 USC is unconstitutional, and incompatible with the constitutional meaning.

        Frankly, your best option here is to concede the point.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          And your interpretation continues to imply that everyone who isn’t a male between 17 and 45, or a female in the National Guard, is not People. You keep dancing around with your definition of Militia while conveniently ignoring that your claim was that Militia = People and the words are interchangeable. That is my sole contention.

          You can either concede that your claim was wrong, or you can affirm that you believe that men 17-45 and women in the National Guard are the only citizens who count as People. There is no alternative.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            And your interpretation continues to imply that everyone who isn’t a male between 17 and 45, or a female in the National Guard, is not People.

            I have addressed this many, many times.

            The constitutional meaning of “militia” is very, very broad. The constitutional meaning of “militia” is so broad that it is effectively synonymous with “the people”. This meaning cannot be changed except through the amendment process.

            The legislative meaning of militia is much broader than most people realize, but much narrower than the constitutional meaning. The legislative meaning is codified as 10 USC 246. This meaning can be expanded or shrunk at the will of Congress. It cannot be expanded beyond the Constitutional meaning. Whoever Congress wants to add to the legislative meaning tomorrow was already within the constitutional meaning yesterday.

            And just for shits and giggles, there is also Mr. Johnson’s meaning of “militia”, which is narrower than either the Constitutional meaning or the Legislative meaning. It is so narrow that I don’t need to demonstrate the broad constitutional meaning to defeat that claim; I can defeat it even with the narrower (but simpler) legislative meaning.

            And just for the sake of completeness, there is also the term “adults” as you have used it above, which is clearly broader than the legislative definition, and seems reasonablyncomparable to both the Constitutional meaning of “militia” and “the people”.

            You can either concede that your claim was wrong, or you can affirm that you believe that men 17-45 and women in the National Guard are the only citizens who count as People. There is no alternative.

            False dichotomy. An alternative is to demonstrate that your understanding of my claim is faulty. Which it is. You are raising a strawman interpretation of my claim.

            My claim is that the constitutional meaning of “militia” is synonymous with “the people”, which is true.

            Your strawman interpretation is that the legislative meaning of “militia” is synonymous with “the people”, which is, of course false.

            I readily concede that your strawman interpretation is false. Fortunately, the validity of my actual claim is not at all affected by your strawman.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              The constitutional meaning of “militia” is very, very broad. The constitutional meaning of “militia” is so broad that it is effectively synonymous with “the people”.

              A totally unsubstantiated claim which you have made multiple times with zero evidence.

              Dance for someone else, it’s not even entertaining anymore.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Your own position on training “adults” is all the evidence I need in this debate. I accepted your concession.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Dance dance dance. This was no debate, this was a rich demonstration of your ability to deviate, distract, and entirely miss the point. And you still can’t present a shred of evidence. Clownshow.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    The current legislative definition, and the fact that Congress is free to expand it, gives me everything I need. I don’t even need to resort to the myriad contemporaneous statements by the founding fathers describing the militia as the “yeomanry” or the "whole body of the people.

                    Your acceptance of a training program that would apply to everyone upon reaching adulthood was an unexpected piece of evidence, but a welcome one.

                    And, lest we forget, this whole argument rests on the complete lie that the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on militia “service”. It is clearly guaranteed to “the people.”