stanc Wrote:In post #80 you wrote: "Since every legally aged citizen has the right to bear arms, this proves every legally, 'of old enough age' citizen not in the organized militia are in the un-organized militia."
The Supreme Court would not make such an absurd statement, since it is contradicted by US law.
The court ruled there is no militia service needed for the right to bear arms. Since there is an age requirement for the organized militia then it was "my take" not the courts, there was no age requirement for the un-organized militia. If the right to bear arms is not connected to the militia then where does the right come from? The conundrum and the question you never answer. Sorry, I know projecting

stanc Wrote:You keep quoting Mason's personal opinion. I cite US law.
And according to US law, from 1792 to the present, only a small segment of the population -- not "the whole people" -- comprise the militia.
But, since you persist in quoting Mason, I imagine that you'll keep ignoring what the law says.
. :p
OK, I will try not to project
You never answered my question about the "conundrum". If the right to bear arms is not connected to the militia, then where does the right come from? If the right is connected to the militia, which militia has no age limit? There is no historical or recent case law where age limited the right to bear arms. If only able body citizens have the right to bear arms then please show me the evidence this has ever been enforced. Case law, or historical evidence. Since 71% of the youth today are not fit enough to serve in the military and most of the other old farts such as myself are not age appropriate, why doesn't the anti-gun crowd just evoke the able body rule to take one hell of a lot of guns off the street?stanc Wrote:I never said the Founders were evil. :p
So you are copacetic with racist, sexist slave owners "your description, not mine"............ Okie Dokie!

