montana Wrote:Since the Heller case verified the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with "service" in a militia, it is also reasonable to assume that all people belong to the un-organized militia since all people have the right to bear arms...a. It is factually incorrect to claim that "all people" have the right to bear arms. Some people are denied that right, such as convicted felons, mental defectives, and children.
b. It is unreasonable, illogical, and irrational to assume that all people belong to the unorganized militia, when the law that you yourself cited says it is comprised only of able-bodied, military-age males.
montana Wrote:There is no historical reference to age discrimination for the right to bear arms because of the inability to serve in the arm forces. If there is, please show me.I never said there was.
montana Wrote:When Georgia in 1837 enacted the first ban on pistol ownership, its supreme court promptly struck it down, holding in the process that the second amendment applied to the states. It explained the amendment's meaning: "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed ... and this for the important end to be achieved, the rearing up and qualifying of a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state."Things have changed in the last 181 years. Well-regulated militias have been superseded by the National Guard, thereby eliminating the need for members to provide their own weapons; there are minimum age limits for buying commonly-available firearms; there are restrictions on the types of arms that private citizens can legally keep and bear; and the courts have repeatedly affirmed -- as in Heller -- that the government can infringe on the RKBA.