Pulled over while CC,State PoliceX2

[headcase]

I feel that you may be lumping together a citizens duty to serve his (or her) country with the right to keep and bear arms. The two can be mutually exclusive; a citizen need not carry arms nor kill yet still may serve in a 'military'/'support' capacity.

Service in the militia included nearly as many different 'jobs' then as it does now - not all of those in the militia served by shooting people or carrying weapons. There were militia men who were doctors and 'medics', cooks, messengers and other people who were just as essential as those carrying and shooting pistols, muskets and rifles and swinging swords and what not.

Whether we are discussing a citizens duty to serve when called upon for duty in the post-colonial militia or in the modern armed forces - the keeping and bearing of arms is not forced upon any American whose beliefs (genuinely) include pacifism.

Do I think it is a 'civic duty' of citizens to serve in the defense one's country should the need arise (ie: a 'draft' or 'conscription')? If that is your 'question' here, of course I do; it's a silly question. Do I think the founders expected citizens to similarly serve their country? Again, of course I do; and again, it's a silly question.

The fact remains that the founders of the U.S.A., those who ratified the original constitution and comprised our first federal government, did not require pacifists to keep or bear arms nor to take life.

Among those people who constituted a fair number of colonists were those whose 'religious beliefs' included pacifism. As you know, most of those families/groups came to 'the New World' to escape religious persecution and be free to practice their religion. As you also know, the Freedom of Religion is a large part of the foundation of the United States. I insist (as evidenced by the Conscientious Objector clause) that our nations founders were well aware of the 'belief' in pacifism among many of the colonists and indeed did respected such religious beliefs.

Were you excused from the militia because you were a pacifist? No; but you were not required to keep arms, bear arms or kill people either.

During those times in our nation's history when the draft was in effect citizens were still 'drafted' regardless of 'religious beliefs' yet pacifists (Conscientious Objectors) were still not required to carry arms or kill the enemy.

Maybe you are missing this part, which he italicised, of the quote from the Pa. Constitution offered by MDJ

Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent;

Whether the payment be equivalent service or a monetary sum, yes everyone is supposed to be required to bear arms, unless due to being genuinely scrupulous of doing so, they pay not to have to do so. Re-read what he said.

[Adam-12]

Maybe you are missing this part, which he italicised, of the quote from the Pa. Constitution offered by MDJ Whether the payment be equivalent service or a monetary sum, yes everyone is supposed to be required to bear arms, unless due to being genuinely scrupulous of doing so, they pay not to have to do so. Re-read what he said.

Yep. They clearly saw "bearing arms" as a duty, which a person could be excused from--but not for free.

I'd be leery of carrying that notion to extremes, though. At one extreme, it's self-evident that defending yourself, your wife and children, is a moral duty and not just a civic one. You can refuse to do that duty, but there's a cost: you might be killed, or watch your wife and kids be abused or killed. At the other extreme, there's no moral OR civic duty to invade Argentina so Obama can look like he has a big dick. Our duty is limited to legitimate defense, and what constitutes legitimate defense is open to debate. In reasonably foreseeable circumstances, that could mean not defending the US government, but defending Americans from the US government.

[Bruce]

Maybe you are missing this part, which he italicised, of the quote from the Pa. Constitution offered by MDJ [...] Whether the payment be equivalent service or a monetary sum, yes everyone is supposed to be required to bear arms, unless due to being genuinely scrupulous of doing so, they pay not to have to do so. Re-read what he said.

I am still missing the point.

I already explained that when you are a Conscientious Objector you still have an 'obligation' to serve your country - money, other capacity, 'whatever'. The quote from the Constitution actually supports this idea.

If the government *demanded* all citizens (regardless of individuals scruples) to 'take up arms' then they wouldn't have bothered to specifically recognize those who are "conscientiously scrupulous" not being "justly compelled" to do so.

I stand by my original statement, which, basically, was: the United States of America does not now, nor has it ever, attempted to justly compel pacifistic citizens to keep and bear arms; that those who conscientiously object to 'doing violence' were not compelled to do so by the government (and - to support this - they were, clearly, given alternatives during times of 'war' or call to 'national defense').

I am just failing to see where there is any question in, or where there is any reasonable argument to, my assertion.
.

[MDJschool]

Maybe you are missing this part, which he italicised, of the quote from the Pa. Constitution offered by MDJ

Whether the payment be equivalent service or a monetary sum, yes everyone is supposed to be required to bear arms, unless due to being genuinely scrupulous of doing so, they pay not to have to do so. Re-read what he said.

Perhaps it is partially my fault, having said

So it wouldn't be unpatriotic to fail to rise to arms against a foreign invader, or to protect the state from a federal tyrant, or to protect the people from a state tyrant? Isn't that the whole idea of a militia?

That was only supposed to illustrate the matter of patriotism and duty, not to effect the argument regarding a mobilized militia. The point I wanted to make was that the militia exists even without being organized or mobilized, and the militia is one part deterrence, so presumably the conscientious objectors are paying a fee not only for their active participation but what they would otherwise have added to the deterrence mechanism. The support roles in peace time are probably such things as voting and schooling (raising families?) but I don't know that they are equated to the fee mandated by the 1776 constitution in place of being armed, even if they might be 'yielding[] an equivalent' (as it regarded 'personal service').

[headcase]

I am still missing the point.

I already explained that when you are a Conscientious Objector you still have an 'obligation' to serve your country - money, other capacity, 'whatever'. The quote from the Constitution actually supports this idea.

If the government *demanded* all citizens (regardless of individuals scruples) to 'take up arms' then they wouldn't have bothered to specifically recognize those who are "conscientiously scrupulous" not being "justly compelled" to do so.

I stand by my original statement, which, basically, was: the United States of America does not now, nor has it ever, attempted to justly compel pacifistic citizens to keep and bear arms; that those who conscientiously object to 'doing violence' were not compelled to do so by the government (and - to support this - they were, clearly, given alternatives during times of 'war' or call to 'national defense').

I am just failing to see where there is any question in, or where there is any reasonable argument to, my assertion.
.

I was failing to see it as well. You seemed to be arguing exactly what he had said?