Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[bj139]

"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."

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. Is this a sentence? No.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Is this a sentence? Yes.

The militia portion describes the sentence but does not change it.

[montana]

They still do not contradict what I said, so I still have no idea what you were objecting to.

I quote you again...What you have quoted are not "The Militia Clauses." "They are not "militia laws"

Come on Stan, now your back to your old game. They are the militia clauses from the Constitution and laws.

I acknowledge only one what?

Type of militia... the organized militia "national Guard"!!!! More games?

You keep saying that all citizens are the militia, even though Federal law dating back to 1792 says different.

We have evolved since the days of land owning whites keeping slaves and indentured servants. By the way, many nations and races had slaves during those days, not just the evil white land owners. Yes, "TODAY", all legal citizens of required age,"like all rights", share the same rights. No toddlers voting in elections.

I just didn't bother, because the Founders' intent is arguable. Plus, you didn't answer my previous questions related to Madison's intent with his wording of the 2A: How does it logically make it a right to keep and bear arms if one is not in the militia, when the 2A clearly links the militia and the RKBA? Why would the militia even be mentioned if the RKBA is independent of militia membership?

I never said a person didn't need to be in the militia, you did. I said the opposite. DC vs Heller stated the right does not require service in the militia, but it never stated one did not have to be in the militia. 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. I gave reference to the, all citizens are the militia,"Georgia supreme court 1837" reference, you have given zero court cases that the un-organized militia and gun rights are age determined,"able body" like the organized militia.

[keystone183]

LOL. If there were any answers there, I definitely was not able to recognize them. :p

All I see in your previous post is a comment on my "INTERPRETATION" of something.

Which makes no sense, because I did not interpret anything -- I asked two questions.

I thought better of you i suppose! Your second question is merely asking a question i asked previously, and one i said i had no answer for! The first question relies on your "INTERPRETATION" of the 2A. So you will see that i did indeed answer that one!

[stanc]

"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."

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. Is this a sentence? No.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Is this a sentence? Yes.

Each of those phrases is a part of one sentence. The second phrase could be a sentence, but it is not written as such.

Nice try, though.

The militia portion describes the sentence but does not change it.

No, what the militia clause actually does is establish the reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

[keystone183]

No, what the militia clause actually does is establish the reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

In your interpretation.

[bj139]

Each of those phrases is a part of one sentence. The second phrase could be a sentence, but it is not written as such.

Nice try, though.


No, what the militia clause actually does is establish the reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

Grammatically, you are wrong.

The key is it does not say the right of the "militia" to keep and bear as someone already stated but the right of the "people".
You can deny it but it doesn't make you right.

[bj139]

What if I said, "Because the British may come back, the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed".

Does that mean, If the British come back the people may keep and bear arms, otherwise they may not?

[41bear]

You have a God given right/responsibility to protect your life and IMO that overrides any/all other laws, government or otherwise.

[stanc]

I gave reference to the, all citizens are the militia,"Georgia supreme court 1837" reference, you have given zero court cases that the un-organized militia and gun rights are age determined,"able body" like the organized militia.

I cited US law that defines the militia, the very same law that you yourself have cited, but which you now wish to ignore because it contradicts your claim that all citizens are the militia:

[COLOR="#0000FF"]10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(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.[/COLOR]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

[montana]

Aside from the matter that I've never seen anyone refer to paragraphs in the Constitution as "clauses" -- let alone numbered clauses -- you quoted the wrong comment.

Here's the statement I'm talking about, and your response, which -- as I said -- is not contradicted by your "militia clauses," so I still don't know what your objection was.



No games. You said: "The organized and un-organized militia belong to these clauses, 'even though you acknowledge only one, doesn't make the other irrelevant'"

I wasn't sure if the "one" you were referring to was one of the two militia categories, or one of the two militia "clauses."


:confused: That response makes no sense at all.


And you're still not answering the questions.


OMG. You're really saying that the RKBA does not require service in the militia, so that proves everyone is in the militia???


I cited US law that defines the militia, the very same law that you yourself have cited, but which you now wish to ignore because it contradicts your claim that all citizens are the militia:

[COLOR="#0000FF"]10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(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.[/COLOR]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

The truth is Stan, no matter which side one decides to take, it can lead to a conundrum. The right of the people verifies the right to all people, period! It does not say, the right of the militia, but the people. Other wise it would plainly state the right of the militia to own and bear arms.

The militia clause gives the age (a) The Militia of the United States Consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age * * * under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States and 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 Naval Militia

OK, sounds reasonable, but the heller vs DC states no service in the militia is needed for the right to bear arms, so logically the un-organized militia must not have any age requirements if all people have that right, or perhaps there is no militia connection to that right since the court cases have up-held that thought. Perhaps it is the 3rd militia "the state defense force".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
This is a relatively new add on to the militia, so it really could not be connected to the right to bear arms as the authors of that right intended.

There are hundreds of documents stating by the authors of the 2ndA that it is the whole of the people, or all citizens who are the militia. The Federalist and anti-Federalist agreed on this. Yet the right to own and bear arms have been infringed, especially with militia weapons. Like I stated....CONUNDRUM!

[stanc]

...the heller vs DC states no service in the militia is needed for the right to bear arms, so logically the un-organized militia must not have any age requirements if all people have that right...

No. It is exceedingly illogical and irrational to conclude that the unorganized militia must not have any age requirements, when the law defining the unorganized militia clearly sets age requirements.

There are hundreds of documents stating by the authors of the 2ndA that it is the whole of the people, or all citizens who are the militia.

You are failing to look at historical context and definition. In 1790, "the whole people" did not have the same meaning that it does today.

18% of the country's population were slaves who had no right to keep and bear arms, and were legally considered property, not people.

40% of the population were white females, not required to serve in the militia.

Yet the right to own and bear arms have been infringed, especially with militia weapons. Like I stated....CONUNDRUM!

Yup. However, with the original militia system having been superseded by the National Guard, there is no longer a need for individuals to have militia weapons. Another....CONUNDRUM!

[montana]

No. It is exceedingly illogical and irrational to conclude that the unorganized militia must not have any age requirements, when the law defining the unorganized militia clearly sets age requirements.

So please explain the Heller case where service in the militia is not a priority to keep and bear arms. Are you saying the right is not related to the militia?

You are failing to look at historical context and definition. In 1790, "the whole people" did not have the same meaning that it does today.

18% of the country's population were slaves who had no right to keep and bear arms, and were legally considered property, not people.

So your point would be??? This is what the Jim Crow laws past by the democrats tried to keep. The NRA and Republicans saw to it that all people were citizens when the 13th amendment was pasted and all citizens had the right to bear arms.

40% of the population were white females, not required to serve in the militia.

True, but they were never denied the right to bear arms.

Yup. However, with the original militia system having been superseded by the National Guard, there is no longer a need for individuals to have militia weapons. Another....CONUNDRUM!

Once again you neglect truth. The militia laws are still intact whether you acknowledge them or not. The militia can still be called on if needed or asked for.
The federal government recognizes state defense forces, as per the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces (i.e., they are not excluded from the draft). Under 32 USC § 109(e), "A person may not become a member of a defense force ... if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces."

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as army units, but air and naval units also exist.[2][3]

Kind of hard to prevent tyranny in government with an armed population, if the only armed population with effective arms,"militia weapons" are the people in government. Kind of goes against the 2ndA in the first place if that is your irrational logic. As far as you believing miltia weapons are no longer needed, we will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one. King George agreed with you on that one lol.

[bj139]

The militia clause is irrelevant. That is why the left keeps trying to use it to justify their gun grabbing.

[stanc]

The militia clause is irrelevant.

Interesting. So you're saying that the Founders were wrong, a well regulated Militia is not necessary to the security of a free State?

[bj139]

Interesting. So you're saying that the Founders were wrong, a well regulated Militia is not necessary to the security of a free State?

It is relevant to something. Just not relevant to the PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear arms.

[stanc]

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as army units, but air and naval units also exist.

And as with the National Guard, SDF's issue any required weapons to their members.

Kind of hard to prevent tyranny in government with an armed population, if the only armed population with effective arms,"militia weapons" are the people in government. Kind of goes against the 2ndA in the first place if that is your irrational logic.

The reason for the 2A was to ensure that members of organized militias could "keep and bear" the arms they needed for militia service. The current iteration of the organized militia -- the National Guard -- issues all required weapons. And the National Guard has the same types of weapons as the US government, so the government is not "the only armed population."

As far as you believing miltia weapons are no longer needed, we will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one.

It's not a belief. It's a fact. The National Guard issues all required weapons; there is no need for members to provide their own arms.

[montana]

Huh? What does any of that have to do with age requirements for the unorganized militia?


Okay, I'll try to make it simpler. The point is that when folks like George Mason said "the whole people are the militia," they meant the white male population, not all people.


Doesn't matter. With rare exception, women did not serve in the militia.


I don't know what truth you think I "neglected." I certainly did not dispute that the militia can be called on. Are you disagreeing that the old militia system was superseded by the National Guard?


And as with the National Guard, SDF's issue any required weapons to their members.


The reason for the 2A was to ensure that members of organized militias could "keep and bear" the arms they needed for militia service. The current iteration of the organized militia -- the National Guard -- issues all required weapons. And the National Guard has the same types of weapons as the US government, so the government is not "the only armed population."


It's not a belief. It's a fact. The National Guard issues all required weapons; there is no need for members to provide their own arms.


King George died long before the National Guard was born. LOL.

Stan, since you love to dodge direct questions I will let this debate drop. This was not a debate on land owning white men, minority's and women's ability to vote or if the national guard does the same job as the earlier militia. It is about citizens gun rights and the reason for it. The courts have ruled the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the service in the militia as bj139 has stated. The courts in the past have been mixed at best when describing those rights as I have stated a "conundrum" until recently. Where gun rights will go depends on who is elected, not by my opinion or yours.https://www.thoughtco.com/second-amendme...ses-721399
I could debate my belief of the original intent of our gun rights and you yours but it is an act of futility and pointless. Elections matter and the courts will rule. The End!

[keystone183]

The morality and hypocrisy of of the men who conceived the ideas has no bearing on the ideas themselves. The ideas are important, not the ideals of the men or the time.

Gun ownership is a right granted by the second amendment given the way i interpret the statement. I do wonder about the decision to word the 2nd differently than any of the other amendments, but even so the intent, to me, is clear. Madision et al were clearly able to express their ideas in a direct and straight forward manner, and that there is only one such statement in that 2a.....i'll take it.

[stanc]

It is relevant to something. Just not relevant to the PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear arms.

LOL. Madison incorporated the militia clause because it pertains directly to the right to keep and bear arms.

[keystone183]

LOL. Madison incorporated the militia clause because it pertains directly to the right to keep and bear arms.

Directly in what way? Directly to the PEOPLE's rtkb? Directly in the sense that Madison puts that qualifier in to words? Directly in that he wrote an explanation afterwards? Directly in that you know something about commas i don't?