Just a thought here

[RaspberrySurprise]

I was about to go to sleep and something crossed my mind. If you were to believe that the second amendment only guarantees a right to bear arms if you are part of a militia would the amendment not contradict itself?

If "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" then wouldn't a requirement of militia service be an infringement mandated by the amendment itself? It's like saying some people are more equal than others!

Now I know that such mental gymnastics have no point really since it has been ruled that militia service is not a requirement for the keeping of arms, but I couldn't get it out of my head.

 

[Mr White]

far too much thought needed before 8 am on a Saturday for a purely academic discussion.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

far too much thought needed before 8 am on a Saturday for a purely academic discussion.

I don't think the amendment calls for compulsory service in a formally organized militia. Perhaps after some more coffee ...

 

[RaspberrySurprise]

I don't think the amendment calls for compulsory service in a formally organized militia.

Oh I didn't intend that I was saying that by reading it as requiring militia service or membership to bear arms would be a self contradiction, rather like dividing by zero.

 

[armedandsafe]

The thing to remember is that Federal law does call for mandatory militia service. There is an age limitation for active service, but historical evidence shows that all who are able are militia, always.

Should anyone tell me I am not a member if the militia because of my age,I'm going to bring up federallaw about discrimination due to age.

Pops