Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[stanc]

The PragerU video explained it well. Anyone can argue something other than what it actually says.

The guy in the video is arguing that some aspects of the 2A are other than they actually are. (See post #4.)

[montana]

Disagree. It's pertaining to the phrase "well regulated militia."

There is a distinct difference between the organized militia, which is tasked with providing "the security of a free State," versus the unorganized militia, which is only a manpower pool.

From my earlier post, Quote:
It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

If the right to bear arms was granted only to the organized militia, then the Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller would not have ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller

[bj139]

The guy in the video is arguing that some aspects of the 2A are other than they actually are. (See post #4.)

Stan, you're funny. LOL

[stanc]

From my earlier post, Quote:
...as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government…

Concur. From my earlier post, Quote:
When the Second Amendment was written, a "well regulated" militia was one that was properly trained, organized, and equipped to function as a military unit.

If the right to bear arms was granted only to the organized militia, then the Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller would not have ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia.

:confused: Not seeing how this pertains to my comments about the difference between a "well regulated" (organized) militia and the unorganized militia.

[montana]

Concur. From my earlier post, Quote:
When the Second Amendment was written, a "well regulated" militia was one that was properly trained, organized, and equipped to function as a military unit.


:confused: Not seeing how this pertains to my comments about the difference between a "well regulated" (organized) militia and the unorganized militia.

From your comment on post #4

And his statement that "[militia] is clearly not a reference to a small, National Guard-type group" is clearly wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not say "the militia," which would encompass both the organized and unorganized militia. Instead it addresses a "well-regulated" militia, which means the organized State militias that were superseded by the National Guard.

The 2ndA covers both the organized and unorganized militia, "not just the national guard"organized militia. The Heller case confirms this.

[cory]

This old argument on the times in which the 2nd was written is ridiculous as it leaves out the important details.

What were the most powerful weapons in colonial times? The battleship, which was owned by private citizens (merchentment). This was directly supported by the author of the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm

[keystone183]

Can someone point me to period specific discussion of militias and organized vs unorganized? My google foo must be weak.

[montana]

Can someone point me to period specific discussion of militias and organized vs unorganized? My google foo must be weak.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

[keystone183]

First thank you and second, i apologize as i might be being lazy here, but what is the origin of that code? Best i can tell written in 1916?

[montana]

This old argument on the times in which the 2nd was written is ridiculous as it leaves out the important details.

What were the most powerful weapons in colonial times? The battleship, which was owned by private citizens (merchentment). This was directly supported by the author of the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm

Great find cory, you are correct in your understanding of the 2ndA. Compared to it's original function and intent, the courts and uneducated citizens have transformed the 2ndA into a neutered goat.

[montana]

First thank you and second, i apologize as i might be being lazy here, but what is the origin of that code? Best i can tell written in 1916?

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

[keystone183]

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

Thank you again. However i'm finding nothing regarding a distinction of classes of militia?

Point being, i'm confused as to why we're classing militias here? (i know why)

[I]"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Now can we debate classes of people JM was referring to???

[montana]

Thank you again. However i'm finding nothing regarding a distinction of classes of militia?

Point being, i'm confused as to why we're classing militias here? (i know why)

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Now can we debate classes of people JM was referring to???

Yea, it is that stupid. How the discussions on this forum and on the national level have gotten to this point makes my head spin. But this is the reality of today.

[NugginFutz]

Yea, it is that stupid. How the discussions on this forum and on the national level have gotten to this point makes my head spin. But this is the reality of today.

It is, for some, nothing more than an intellectual exercise with no further intent than to engage in verbal word play.

To others, montana, it is the stone against which we sharpen our steel. The researching of the historical writings on the subject of the Constitution has educated several members, here.

The trick is to not allow the contrary positions of some to cause ill will or aggravation within oneself. The moment anger or frustration arrives is the same moment that our reasoning skill begins to depart.

[keystone183]

It is, for some, nothing more than an intellectual exercise with no further intent than to engage in verbal word play.

To others, montana, it is the stone against which we sharpen our steel. The researching of the historical writings on the subject of the Constitution has educated several members, here.

The trick is to not allow the contrary positions of some to cause ill will or aggravation within oneself. The moment anger or frustration arrives is the same moment that our reasoning skill begins to depart.

Very much THIS!!

[sundog]

It pretty much boils down to this - origialism.

If one subscribes to the ideas presented, then it is incumbent that that one go enough research (reading of the framers) to fully understand their intent.

Besides, it would not hurt anyone to learn American History, the good and the bad.

[montana]

The trick is to not allow the contrary positions of some to cause ill will or aggravation within oneself. The moment anger or frustration arrives is the same moment that our reasoning skill begins to depart.

Once again, wise advise Nuggin, thank you

[stanc]

The 2ndA covers both the organized and unorganized militia, "not just the national guard"organized militia. The Heller case confirms this.

Heh, heh. The Heller case also confirms that the government can infringe on the RKBA.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

One thing you are overlooking is that, when George Mason said the militia is "the whole people," he was not referring to the entire US population.

Back then, most of the black population was legally considered property (Mason himself owned many black slaves), and not allowed to own guns.

Also excluded were white women, since they were not required to serve. No, "the militia" was not then, and never has been, the entire population.

[stanc]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

However, that is just one man's opinion. It was not (and is not) the law.

The Militia Act of 1792 (as well as 10 USC 246) makes it clear that only a small percentage of the population -- not "the whole people" -- was (and is) the militia.

[dammitman]

well, as I read the laws , yes it is.