Laci presented a wonderful glimpse into what it must have been like in the 1790s complete with fine art.
By 1830, muster days were under attack from those who resented the required participation. They were joined by temperance advocates, who objected to the considerable public drunkenness attending each muster, and later by critics of the Mexican War, who claimed that the existence of a peace-time militia had in fact led to this conflict.The irony is too much. Your typical 2nd Amendment champion of the 21st century would have objected to participation in the militia. Aren't the gun advocates we know and love the very kind who would "resent mandatory participation" in anything?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Temperance advocates and war protesters hardly seem to match the description of "Your typical 2nd Amendment champion"
ReplyDeleteOverlooking that technicality, early drafts of the 2A actually forbade compulsary militia service.
Laci barked:
> Now, they demand the right without the obligation encumbent to that right.
That obligation in present day exists as the Selective Service System. Are you implying that gun owners are draft dodgers?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKind of a moot point, isn't it, now that it's a settled point of Constitutional law that exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment is unconnected to militia service?
ReplyDeleteBesides, when gun rights advocates do form militias, aren't our distinguished bloggers here among the first to soil themselves in horror?
VD, There is a difference between the militia and the army, which shows you don't understand the institution of the militia. The short form:
ReplyDeleteMilitia=part time and amateur
Army=Full time and professional.
the Selective Service is a violation of "your second Amendment rights" since it forces people into the regular army.
Actual "Second Amendment" duties would mean participating in the muster and being enrolled as a militia member.
Unorganised, reserve, sedentary, or whatever you choose to call it militia is the draft pool for members who would actually be enrolled.
Additionally, any "militia" needs to be created per Article I, Section 8 to be a "constitutional" militia.
Otherwise, my Royal New Jersey Militia is an "official" militia unit.
Yeah, right Zorro, militia today means just what it did back in the good old days of our glorious revolution.
ReplyDeleteAnd, not the point is not moot. The "law" as we interpret it is ever-changing.
Overlooking that technicality, early drafts of the 2A actually forbade compulsary militia service.
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. What it did was try to exclude those religious groups for whom military service would have been anathema. The "religiously scrupulous" clause was removed because it was feared it could be used to exclude those groups from other aspects of service such as holding office.
Removing the clause actually makes the case for compulsory service greater.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteAnd, not the point is not moot. The "law" as we interpret it is ever-changing.
So are you planning to repeal the Second Amendment? Or have you appealed the Heller decision to the Ultra-Secret Super Duper Deluxe Supreme Court?
By the way, have you noticed that Obama says he's cool with the Heller decision?
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far . . .
Doesn't sound like he's planning to nominate justices with an eye to overturning Heller, unless you want to accuse him of lying . . .
Heller was 5-4 with the dissents both using the Civic right theory.
ReplyDeleteEven if you use the main Heller Decision, it is of extremely limited scope and allows for sales restrictions, background checks and registration.
Since I still hold that the civic right interpretation is the only one which makes sense legally and historically, I cannot support the new decision's outcome.
However, were I to be solely interested in gun control, the Heller decision is wonderful.
If you had any intelligence and comprehended this post:
http://lacithedog.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/if-you-saw-a-blind-three-legged-29-year-old-horse-win-the-derby/
You might not make idiotic comments.
But, I forget you are insane and admit to that fact.
That's why you are so out of touch with reality Zorro.
Laci the Ambulance-Chasing Dog:
ReplyDeleteYou might not make idiotic comments.
But, I forget you are insane and admit to that fact.
That's why you are so out of touch with reality Zorro.
Ooh--someone seems a bit fussy. Those ambulances moving too fast to catch lately, you poor little thing?
Laci Barked:
ReplyDelete> the Selective Service is a violation of "your second Amendment rights" since it forces people into the regular army.
Wow... I'd love for you to try to argue that in front of the Supreme Court. I'd personally go the 13th Amendment, but I don't claim to be a lawyer.
Besides that, you have changed your claim that the disruptive registration/drilling Muster Days was a constitutional enforcement of the 2nd amendment, but present-day Selective Service registration is not.
So which is it? Is an bi-annual Muster-style registration carnival constitutional, while an age-18 post-office card registration is not?
I predict that over the next decade or so we'll move back towards common sense in our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. After that, hopefully it can be pushed back into the musty dusty closet it belongs in.
ReplyDeleteJadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteAfter that, hopefully it can be pushed back into the musty dusty closet it belongs in.
Pretending the Second Amendment doesn't exist, just because you don't like it, isn't going to work any more--that genie is out of the bottle. If I were you, I'd look into repealing it, with a Constitutional amendment of your own.
Good luck with that. The requirement that any Constitutional amendment be ratified by 3/4ths of the states means that 13 states can block any such amendment. I seem to remember 13 states (eventually states) standing up for liberty once before--and that didn't work out too well for their adversaries.