[TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT

[Andrew Vida]

Peter Hirst wrote:
> Andrew:  If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free 
> state, why do none exist?

	As I recall, there are actually quite a few.  Every able bodied male is 
militia.  There are several millions who are well trained marksmen - 
that would constitute a well-regulated militia.  There are also several 
state militias all over the nation.  BATFE would like to shoot them all 
dead, I am sure.  A militia does not require formal structure as, say, a 
corporation does in order to be a legitimate fact of life.  There are, 
to my knowledge, no minimum membership requirements in terms of numbers. 
  I could move to your town (gasp) and you and I could form the 
Scalliwag Militia and be perfectly legitimate.  We could train - we 
could sit around and drink beer.  Government has no say in the matter as 
that goes.

	As I was thinking of our exchange today, I realized what I believe to 
be the disconnect between our viewpoints.  I am arguing from a purely 
principled standpoint, and from that POV I believe I am very close to 
perfectly correct.  You are arguing that the wording of Heller leaves 
the door open for a scoundrel to pervert a case based on false 
reasoning.  I agree this is the case - but it is the case in almost any 
ruling.  If a judge is going to be an evil little prick, he can say 
whatever he wants and it will stand until it is appealed.  Of course, 
the danger here is that the SCOTUS is the final stop - if THEY are 
corrupt or misguided, then the case in question is in trouble, no doubt.

	But returning to a principled argument, I will point out that in order 
to be credible, the court would have to demonstrate conclusively that 
there is no longer a need for a well regulated militia.  This would 
place them on some thin ice since they would be attempting to prove a 
negative proposition, which anyone who has ever had even the most basic 
training in logic and reasoning knows is categorically impossible. 
"There are no little green men from outer space" cannot be proven under 
any circumstance.  "There is no need for a well regulated militia" is 
principally identical.  Therefore, if the SCOTUS were to attempt to rule 
this way, they would be putting their reputations and credibility at 
very grave risk.  Of course, they may decide they do not care and 
proceed anyway, but that is another issue.

	There is yet another angle to the notion of the maintenance of a free 
state - that of external enemies operating on US soil.  Maintaining a 
free state means protecting it from all enemies foreign and domestic. 
This is contained in the oath every soldier takes upon joining the armed 
forces.  It can be well argued that another relevant aspect of the 
militia's role in maintaining a free state is to defend against 
terrorism on US soil.  It would be incredibly difficult to argue against 
this in a way that didn't smack of idiocy, ignorance, and utter 
corruption.  This aspect is prima facie proof that a well regulated 
militia is as necessary today as it ever was.  This is probably another 
QED moment. :)