No, I don't. But I have more respect for the Constitution then the Supreme Court does. Nice red herring, though.
So ... You have a better understanding of the United States Constitution than the United States Supreme Court does? Good call, kid.
Your definition of a militia is illegal under the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. It was illegal back during World War II and Vietnam, and it's still illegal now. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. But then, of course, if anybody attempts to use the constitution to defend their rights (), the Supreme Court would rule that states have an obligation to raise a militia for homeland defense, and if the states don't comply, and deliberately go against the 13th Amendment to satisfy the Supreme Court's warped view of the 2nd Amendment (), the government would withhold federal funding, because they're a bunch of corrupt crooks who view people as tools instead of as human beings.
There is a definition of the word "militia". I provided you with this definition, from multiple online dictionaries. You don't have to believe obvious fact if you don't want to -- seems to be a theme for you -- but that doesn't change the fact.
You are correct. The constitution doesn't have to declare who is militia, because it's obvious that militia is anybody belonging to an organized militia organization. It's funny watching you try to argue that everybody alive on earth is militia and must go to war when needed, no questions asked.
The Constitution doesn't have to declare who is militia. It's common knowledge for most, and if not, it's in multiple dictionaries. Like the links I gave you. It's funny watching you try to argue against dictionary definitions.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state simply means that a well regulated militia is necessary to provide national security in a time of crisis. People who don't even know how to use a gun aren't classified as "well regulated," nor "militia." The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed simply gives people the right to own firearms. This statement, however, does not have any sort of significant relation to the first. If the amendment meant "every gun owner or non gun owner who is of military age is militia," then it would have said that. The constitution isn't cryptic, so stop suggesting that it is. It's straight forward. If you're too stubborn to realize what it means, then that's on you. You argue to prove that you're right, but you have to constantly argue because you're constantly wrong. Give it up. You don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.
"... every single able-bodied male of military age are the militia, which isn't true at all." Maybe you missed what I posted yesterday, two posts down here, defining militia -- with three links to dictionary definitions -- as exactly "every single able-bodied male of military age". As I've said before -- if you simply disagree with the Constitution, that's on you. But don't try to twist and manipulate it into saying something it doesn't, or not saying something that it clearly does.
Conscription drafts anybody into military service, not just somebody who owns a gun. By that standpoint, every single able-bodied male of military age are the militia, which isn't true at all. Despite the fact that constriction is wrong, it should be up to the individual whether or not to volunteer for military service. That includes gun owners who are apparently part of some kind of organized militia. We aren't a tyranny, and it seems tyrannical to be forced to kill.
Do you know what "conscription" is? I'm sure many able-bodied, military-age-males in the 1960s (and 50s, and 40s, etc.) were called to military service without first belonging to an official militia. Is your argument that the right to bear arms goes out the window when conscription stops?
If he isn't part of any militia organization, then he can't be called upon in a time of crisis, so no, he is not part of militia. It isn't his job. Just as it isn't the job of ordinary gun owners to be forced to partake in, or classify themselves as part of a a militia. The second amendment is in two parts. If you want to apply the first part to the second part, then by all means, do so, but that doesn't make it in context.
Militia: all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service If your "Uncle Buck" is fit and of military age, then yes, he is part of militia.
I'm not going to respond to you in the thread, because I don't have that much to say. You can trust my redneck shotgun wielding Uncle Buck and his drunken buddies at his hunting lodge to stand up and defend America from any threat, but even I'm smart enough to know that simply because a group of people possess firearms doesn't make them a militia.
I will, tiger.
Take care, kid.
