• Rivalarrival
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. All five of the people you mentioned are in the militia. Three of them have been stripped of their right to keep and bear arms through due process of the law, while the other two are deemed incompetent. They retain the right to keep and bear arms, but they are also wards of a legal guardian, and cannot independently exercise that right.

    Congress could, indeed, provide for calling forth 14-year-olds, if they deemed it necessary and proper to do so. The other 4 are subject to judicial rulings that may impact their ability to comply militia provisions. We certainly have called forth inmates to serve various roles where a need has arisen.

    The laws governing use of force are not suspended for any of them; all five can use force under the law.

    • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why are the violently insane and violent criminals not permitted to carry firearms? I’m not asking for the current legal justification, but why you believe they shouldn’t be permitted to carry firearms (assuming you do believe that).

      In addition, do you believe that a five year old should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun, with their parents permission? I’m not talking about rarely, and in the country, but regularly, in crowded urban areas.

      • Rivalarrival
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I can simplify the first part for you. The Constitution refers to “violently insane” and “violent criminals” as “the accused”. To understand my opinion, make the appropriate substitutions, and read the constitution.

        For the second part, a ward’s exercise of liberties and property are subject to their guardian’s judgment. The guardian is expected to act in the best interests of the ward. The guardian is also charged with protecting the rights of the people from infringement by the ward. The role of the guardian, then, is to prudently permit and restrict the liberties of their ward. This certainly includes the keeping and bearing of arms.

        Wardship is restricted to those deemed legally incompetent, either by presumptive statute or by judicial decree.

        • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can simplify the first part for you. The Constitution refers to “violently insane” and “violent criminals” as “the accused”. To understand my opinion, make the appropriate substitutions, and read the constitution.

          I can’t find anything about the accused losing their right to bear arms. Can you direct me to the relevant passage? Or can I take this to mean that you support the violently insane and criminals owning and carrying firearms?

          The role of the guardian, then, is to prudently permit and restrict the liberties of their ward. This certainly includes the keeping and bearing of arms.

          So should it be legal for me to decide that my five year old son can carry a 9mm with him when he goes out to play with the neighborhood kids?

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can you get to whatever you think is your point sometimes soon?

            • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sorry for the delay- I didn’t get a notification for some reason.

              The point is that the violently insane and young children are not allowed to keep and bear arms because they may harm others and because they’re incompetent, respectively. You may still consider them part of the militia in some philosophical sense, but practically, they don’t have the right described in the second amendment.

              If we can restrict a child’s right to keep and bear arms because they are incompetent, then the precedent exists to do the same for adults with no training.

              If we can restrict a violently insane person’s right to keep and bear arms because they may harm others, then the precedent exists to do the same for sane people who may harm others.

              Obviously, adults are not children, and they are mostly sane. However, they can still be just as incompetent, and they can still accidentally kill others during arguments. The analogy holds.

              No military in the world would deploy a fighting force without mandatory weapons training, and a militia is not “well regulated” if it’s members don’t know how to use their weapons.

              • Rivalarrival
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                we can restrict a child’s right to keep and bear arms because they are incompetent, then the precedent exists to do the same for adults with no training.

                Ah, I see the issue. You’re using the word “incompetent” to describe a skill level. I am using the word incompetent to describe the legal capacity to comprehend the consequences of one’s own actions.

                A child with olympic class training and shooting skills, who regularly outshoots police and military sharpshooters in competitions, is still a ward of their parents; they are still deemed unqualified to manage their own affairs. They are still presumed incapable of contemplating the consequences of their own actions, and must be supervised by a parent or guardian. This presumption does not allow them to independently keep and bear arms, yes. (They do have the right to keep and bear arms, contingent on the approval of their guardian: their guardian can arbitrarily deny them access to guns; the state cannot)

                But, this same presumption also denies them the right to vote, and independent exercise of all other rights and privileges. That’d what “wardship” means. The state cannot interfere with their rights, but their guardian can. (Britney was made a ward of her father long after she became an adult. Her father had legal control of her finances. The government did not have the right to keep her from buying things, but her guardian did.)

                At whatever point you end their wardship and statutorily grant them independence from their former guardians, you also grant them independent exercise of their right to keep and bear arms.

                If we can restrict a violently insane person’s right to keep and bear arms because they may harm others, then the precedent exists to do the same for sane people who may harm others.

                A court was involved in depriving the “insane” person of life, liberty, or property. They were formally accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced in a court of law, while enjoying all the rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence.

                Courts have previously found that certain people should be jailed indefinitely, or even killed. Those findings against those particular people are not “precedent” for arbitrarily jailing or executing the general population.

                Have you taken a basic civics course? Your proposals directly conflict with the basic, fundamental principles of our form of government.

                • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I am asking, again, for the reason why laws exist, and again, you’re describing the laws as they currently exist. Why is it necessary for children to have wards? Why do courts restrict the right to bear arms for violent criminals and the insane?

                  If all children were born with the knowledge and experience of adults, we would have no concept of ward and guardian.

                  The law follows from the reason, not the other way around.

                  • Rivalarrival
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I have given you the reason: children are presumed incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That is a rebuttable presumption, in cases of emancipated minors or certain heinous criminal charges.

                    Adults are presumed capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That presumption is also rebuttable, in cases of severe mental deficiency.

                    Rebutting these presumptions is done in a court of law, not the legislature.

                    Assuming the opposite (that children are capable, and adults incapable) violates all sorts of egalitarian principles. It’s a non-starter.