Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[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!