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 you go Stan,clauses in the constitution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cl...nstitution no need to thank me.

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.

You repeatedly state the national guard has replaced the role of the militia while disregarding the other militias which are still intact in law. To make this statement completely ignores the role of the un-oranized militia which is the population as a whole. If the population as a whole is not part of the militia as you believe, then how does the right to bear arms occur if not connected to the militia? The court ruled the right does not come from service in the militia. Does this mean the whole population belongs to the un-organized militia? That was my take on it. If not, where does the right to bear arms come from. This is the conundrum I was speaking about. Clear it up for you?

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

I never said that, the courts did,Heller vs DC. The authors of the 2ndA stated it is the whole people who are the militia,George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
This is where you went off on the evil white sexist and racist founders direction. This is where the conundrum came from in my opinion. If there is no connection between gun rights and the militia, then where do they come from? This idea completely disregards the authors of the 2ndA historical content and context, IMO.

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:

I never ignored the militia laws but was trying to understand how the right to bear arms is a right without a connection to the militia, again a conundrum. If our rights are connected to the militia and there is no age requirement to the right to bear arms then it must mean everyone is in the un-organised militia,"my take". If our rights are not connected to the militia then where do they come from? Historical content states they do. My words, not yours.