Want Gun Rights? Become an Indentured Servant

Want Gun Rights? Become an Indentured Servant

Want Gun Rights? Become an Indentured Servant

Would you become an indentured servant to exercise your right to keep and bear arms?

Just when you thought the debate over the Second Amendment couldn’t get any dumber, along comes a drooling, cross-eyed imbecile who wants you to become an indentured servant if you have the unmitigated gall to want to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. To be clear, he wants Congress to pass the “Military Induction for Licensing, Instruction and Training In Arms” Act – the MILITIA Act – which  would require anyone purchasing a gun to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.

Let’s put aside the fact that a right which requires you to serve – in any capacity and no matter how noble the service – in order to exercise it is not a right at all.

Let’s also ignore the fact that mandatory military service in exchange for exercising our rights would preclude people with disabilities from keeping and bearing arms – people who could arguably benefit most from armed self defense because their physical disabilities would make them easier prey for violent savages.

This drooling defective actually believes that’s exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted.

Gun advocates tend to talk about the Second Amendment as if it provides the unlimited freedom for any individual to own and carry weapons. The actual language is very different: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The actual language says exactly what it says without libidiot interpretations. According to the late Roy Copperud, who before his death spent a lifetime writing for newspapers, taught journalism at USC, was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, was cited as an expert in language by Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary, and whose fifth book on usage, “American Usage and Style: The Consensus,” has been in continuous print since 1981.

The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.

When it comes to the proper use and interpretation of the English language, I’ll take the expertise of a giant such as the late Mr. Copperud over the inane blatherings of someone who boasts a podcast, types opinions for CNN, and once co-wrote Jackie Chan’s autobiography.

“A whole 60 nations have mandatory military service,” he squeaks, citing recent Pew research. Of course, he conveniently forgets that the number constitutes fewer than a third of the nations in the world, and many of those countries aren’t exactly bastions of freedom, such as Russia and North Korea.

I doubt he wants to go there.

“But this proposal isn’t a turning back of the clock to the days of the draft,” says the moron. “It preserves our fundamental goal of having a volunteer armed forces. It just specifies that choosing to own a firearm should be equivalent to deciding to join our nation’s ‘well-regulated militia.'”

Volunteer. I’m not sure he knows the meaning of the word.

Giphy.com

We already have volunteer armed forces, shitslurper. Forcing an individual to become an indentured servant merely for the privilege of exercising his or her rights is morally abhorrent. In addition, we already have the definition of a “militia” per US code.

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Yes, we are all the militia, so the only reason for this particular proposal is to deprive people of their basic rights, while claiming they are too chickenshit to own firearms. It’s not like we all grow halos the moment we join a military service. There are plenty of folks in the military who commit crimes as well, so the proposal is not in any way meant to reduce crimes committed with firearms. It’s simply meant to prevent as many people from being able to purchase guns as possible.

By suggesting forced compulsory military service on people wishing to exercise their fundamental rights, this assclown is proposing to negate the very ideal of natural rights.

And as an active duty veteran as well as a former National Guardsman, I don’t want anyone serving with me who does not 100 percent want to be there. That’s the whole point of a volunteer force. I wouldn’t trust anyone who was forced into indentured servitude by the government to have my back. Sorry!

“How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren’t on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?” asks the ignorant would-be tyrant who doesn’t understand the concept of rights and wants to redefine the right to defend one’s own life as selfish in the most negative sense.

Redefining the concept of a fundamental right as something you are only granted when you become an indentured servant to the government is not only obnoxiously stupid, but also immoral.

In other words, liberal.

 

Welcome Instapundit readers!

 

Featured image via Pixabay. Creative Commons License 2.0.

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

31 Comments
  • Scott says:

    Spot on as usual Marta! and very nice choice of pic, both the firearm, and the holster! Aliengear is top notch!

    • DonM says:

      Note membership in unorganized militia is limited to males, and has age restrictions. One might suggest amending to add females, without detracting from the other fine points in your article. It would not affect the right, as females are already part of “the people” who have the right.

      • Miles says:

        I am of the opinion that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 affects certain restrictive parameters of §246, to wit:
        able-bodied males……. and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age

      • steveH says:

        Females who are part of the National Guard are also covered as part of the militia. There’s more to it than the unorganized component.

  • A. C. says:

    This bill is sophistry and smoke-blowing to hide the fact that it’s gun registration.

    Does the Military want to be involved in this? The sponsors of this bill can’t assure one penny more to support the military’s management of this program, and the services are already below strength because of lack of money for repairs and spare parts. I bet the Pentagon doesn’t want any part of another resource drain.

  • Nicki says:

    It’s not a bill…. yet. It’s a suggestion by some fucktard on CNN, who doesn’t understand policy.

  • Cameron says:

    OK, I have a reply.

    Fuck you and anything that remotely looks like you. Hamster sodomizing cockmongers like you deserve nothing from normal people and yes, I do want fries with that. Now go do something useful like molesting aardvarks and let the grownups have their conversation.

  • George V says:

    I agree, this is yet another stupid idea from a gun grabber. But, wow, I can think of some unintended consequences if this became law.

    First, don’t worry about those with disabilities. They will be accommodated. We have laws to ensure that. So now every owner of AR, AK, military lookin’ scary rifles is part of an organized group. They know each other. They train together. They know how shoot accurately, how to work cover and concealment, use effective squad, platoon, and company tactics, and to fight as a unit.

    The progressives have now created their own worst enemy. Not just well-armed citizens, but well-armed citizens who know how to fight.

    • Hate_me says:

      The current level of training within the ranks varies from a small number of highly competent individuals and teams to a large majority of combat-ineffective units that act more like a social club than a well-oiled machine. Active elements tend to sit a little higher on that spectrum, but not much.

      In my opinion, these proposed conscripts would better learn tactics and organization, as well as train more regularly, by joining a competent airsoft team (no, I do not play airsoft). The bare minimum qualifying score for marksmanship is hitting slightly over half of one’s intended targets from a controlled and unstressed position, and many units don’t touch their weapons more than once or twice a year; some go for years without pulling a trigger. Many never practice any kind of tactical maneuver, whatsoever.

      This is not to take away from those excellent elements out there who hold themselves to a higher standard and do true justice to the service. It’s just increasingly difficult to do so.

      While the proposal is a clear violation of everything the 2A and America stands for, more firearms enthusiasts in the ranks might raise a ship that’s been taking on water ever since Slick Willy’s drawdown.

  • GWB says:

    The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
    This is the key. People were to keep and bear arms every day so that they would know how the heck to use them when the militia needed them and their arms.

    once co-wrote Jackie Chan’s autobiography
    OK, I gotta say that moves him up a notch in my estimation. He’s starting kinda low, but that moves him. 😉

    But this proposal isn’t a turning back of the clock to the days of the draft
    Ummm…. yeah, it actually is.

    Yes, we are all the militia
    And nowhere is that defined as “voluntary”. Note the definition doesn’t say anything about “those who want to” or “if you really like playing soldier” or “you’re a patriot”. It’s assumed you’ll volunteer because this is your dadgum country, and there’s a reason it’s going to war. (Yeah, all this stuff ties together – you’re not supposed to go off adventuring with American troops, you’re supposed to be calling on them when our actual interests are actually threatened.)

    so the proposal is not in any way meant to reduce crimes committed with firearms
    My proposal (below) isn’t intended to reduce “gun crime” either. It’s meant to make sure people can handle their weapons (whether they ever buy one or not), and to prevent them being scared little ****ies, and from being ignorant ***holes about firearms. Oh, and maybe more people will carry, and that will reduce crime.

    the selfish right to personal protection
    Well, that “selfishness” is exactly why that right is considered to exist. You have a right to life (guns protect ME), liberty (guns protect MY other rights) and property (guns protect MY stuff).

    Yeah, this guy needs to stop running his yap where the whole world can see how ignorant he is.

    • GWB says:

      On my first statement – if you insist on making a militia a prerequisite for the right, then you’ve set yourself up for mandatory issuance, based on the English of the amendment. (It says by that reading that you need a firearm for the militia to be “well-regulated”.) So, either everyone has a gun (or two or three), or you leave it as Heller mostly* interpreted it and it’s a totally individual right.

      (* There’s still problems w/ Heller, imo. It doesn’t go far enough.)

  • GWB says:

    I would love to see states kick start their actual militias by requiring training, drill and study in high school. For all sexes and genders. You pass your safety class and your basic qualifications (the I Didn’t Shoot Any One Else Or Their Targets Or Myself class), and you can start bearing arms publicly (at your majority). You don’t pass, you can still have them at home, but you shouldn’t be in public with one (no CCW for you). If you FAIL (you actually *did* shoot someone else, or you couldn’t help but shoot *yourself* every time you picked up a firearm), then you get adjudicated and can get in a database. (And, yes, I’d let you retake the course. But once you’re an adult you have to pay for it.)

    And, yes, conscientious objectors could take other courses, but would still be required to take the basic safety portion. I’m tempted to restrict their rights on that basis – after all, they have a moral objection so strong they can’t pick one up for their country. But I’d want to find a way to not do that, because it makes my skin crawl.

    I think it adequately covers those with disabilities, too. (If you can’t physically do the things required to shoot a firearm, then you can’t physically exercise that right. Right? If someone wants to build you a custom piece (a firearm shot by blowing in a tube! very cool) and you can handle it safely, then oorah! More power to ya!)

    BTW, the militia clause of the Constitution asks Congress to set the rules for training and disciplining the militia. So, a patriotic House and Senate (and President) could force states to institute school training. Boy howdy, would we hear about “states’ rights” again. And loudly!

    • Hate_me says:

      Though I have no misconceptions that it would ever happen, I would love to see an American firearms mandate similar to the archery mandates of medieval England. This seems more in-line with the intent of the 2A than the logical fallacy of requiring standing militia membership IOT keep and bear. Schools would be an ideal stage for the introduction of such a thing, as it’s a controlled place of learning (remember when almost every high school had a range?).

      I disagree with special allowances for conscientious objectors. The Amish, for example, are a great and pacifistic people who chose other forms of service when faced with the draft – but many among them are very capable hunters and marksmen. Bearing arms isn’t just for war or self-defense.

      If nothing else, educating those opposed to firearms about firearms would encourage more informed and reasoned debate.

    • Scott says:

      Sounds like a hell of a plan GWB.. would definitely change the way kids grow up a bit..

    • Richard says:

      Sounds a bit like Israel. Active duty Israeli Defense Force people are out in public everywhere with their personal weapons – I have seen Tavors and M16-types. The weapons are carried slung with loaded magazine inserted. Spare magazines are carried. Carriers are in uniform or in civilian clothes. It is unusual to go out in public and not see several people armed this way.

  • Mark Kaulius says:

    There are two ways to address this.
    1. The States shall raise and support a militia system that will be based on the County. Each County will be required to raise militia companies to support the State and Federal Militaries. For example, one County might have its citizens want to organize an infantry battalion, a truck company, a medical battalion, an Arty battery and so on. Another one would have its citizens chose different unit types. These units would be under the control of officers elected by the members of those units.
    2. Each Sheriff shall raise posse(s) to assist in carrying out the lawful duties of the county. Every member of the posse shall be a member of the militia.

    There now you have two armed and trained bodies to counteract the evil influences of DC and State Capitals……

  • Bill G says:

    Well, then; how about we try the system Heinlein wrote of in “Starship Troopers”? You don’t get a vote until you volunteer for service, and finish that service. Yep, in order to have a say in how society was run, you had to voluntarily serve the community for a period of time. (D don’t think that serving as a ‘Community Organizer’ would have counted.)

    • DaveP. says:

      “…don’t think that serving as a ‘Community Organizer’ would have counted.”

      But that’s exactly what would happen, here and now, under a service-for-votes system. All the Grievance Studies majors that spent a semester teaching grade school kids to make anti-capitalism protest placards would get to vote; the guy who dropped out of high school to work in a garage to help support his family wouldn’t.

    • GWB says:

      Heinlein was not proposing that system as a desired state.
      And it would require indentured servitude, just as this post says.

      On top of all that (and the abuse DaveP notes), the guy who builds a business or raises cattle in a huge ranch in Wyoming contributes just as much to our civil society as the soldier does.

      • steveH says:

        Heinlein did frame it as voluntary: if you don’t care to have a vote, don’t sign up for service (whether it was going to be counting caterpillar fuzz or something more kinetic in nature).

        Service was just the price for being able to vote.

  • Pete says:

    How would these idiots feel if we demanded a Starship Troopers approach to voting?
    Only military and veterans would have the right to vote.

  • OldParatrooper says:

    For those who aren’t aware, twenty-two states have a State Guard or Defense Force in addition to their National Guard units. The State Guard is an organized core around which the Unorganized Militia can coalesce in times of need.
    Most are organized as Army units, wear Army uniforms with State patches, and follow Army Regulations. Most focus their training on Disaster Response missions such as Search and Rescue, Strategic Communications (HF Radio), Security, and Medical Screening.
    The State Guard Association of the US (www.sgaus.org) has news items and links to the various State Guard organizations.

  • Bert Morris says:

    OldParatrooper is correct. There are a number of States that maintain a State militia (typically called State Gaurds). In others, the State militia is in an inactive status, but could be reactivated by the State. The Texas gaurd is one and they supported the Waco siege. The Texas State Guard requested assistance from other State gaurds, including Alabama (currently inactive).

  • David Byler says:

    Right on Marta! Well spoken. One thing more though: Government responsible for our fire arms training? How have government schools worked out really? – compared to Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, and other private schools? Hmmmmm. My daddy done taught me how to “bear arms.”

  • […] Want Gun Rights? Become an Indentured Servant Would you become an indentured servant to exercise your right to keep and bear arms? […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram