Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[stanc]

Stan, since you love to dodge direct questions...

Tom, psychologists have a term for what you are doing: Projection.

I have answered almost every question you asked, while you have refused to answer almost every question I asked.

[stanc]

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?

Directly in that the militia system established by the Founders required the people who served in the militia provide the arms that they had to keep and bear.

[bj139]

Good sparring session, Stan. Keeps us in practice for defending the RKBA.

[keystone183]

Directly in that the militia system established by the Founders required the people who served in the militia provide the arms that they had to keep and bear.

Hmm. Could you point me to where Madison explains this?

ETA!!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.....don't point me to an expatiation of the militia system. I should have been clearer. Please point me to where Madison explains that, because of the milita system the rtkb is extended to only those in the milita, even though he failed to specify that in the document. Or even something close to that type of explanation or discussion regarding the verbiage.

[stanc]

Good sparring session, Stan. Keeps us in practice for defending the RKBA.

[montana]

Tom, psychologists have a term for what you are doing: Projection.

So, you are a psychology expert as well as a constitutional scholar. Amazing!

[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.

[stanc]

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.

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 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.”

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.

This is where you went off on the evil white sexist and racist founders direction.

I never said the Founders were evil. :p

[montana]

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

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?

I never said the Founders were evil. :p

So you are copacetic with racist, sexist slave owners "your description, not mine"............ Okie Dokie!

[stanc]

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.

Your "take" is wrong. According to Federal law (10 USC 246), the age limits are the same for both the organized and unorganized militia.

Think about it. If the militia were "the whole people" (as per Mason), that would include everyone from newborn babies to old folks on their deathbed.

The unorganized militia is a reserve pool of personnel upon which the organized militia can draw, so it needs to have the same age limits.

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?

Presumably, the right to keep and bear arms comes from the Founders' belief that white people were endowed with "God given" rights.

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?

:confused: I've never heard of such a rule.

So you are copacetic with racist, sexist slave owners "your description, not mine"............ Okie Dokie!

LOL. No, I just don't subscribe to the notion of "good" and "evil."

[montana]

Your "take" is wrong. According to Federal law (10 USC 246), the age limits are the same for both the organized and unorganized militia.

Think about it. If the militia were "the whole people" (as per Mason), that would include everyone from newborn babies to old folks on their deathbed.

The unorganized militia is a reserve pool of personnel upon which the organized militia can draw, so it needs to have the same age limits.


Presumably, the right to keep and bear arms comes from the Founders' belief that white people were endowed with "God given" rights.


:confused: I've never heard of such a rule.

So you are now saying only white people have a God given right to bear arms today or do you think all citizens have that right by law. Conundrum, opinion or fact?

LOL. No, I just don't subscribe to the notion of "good" and "evil."

[stanc]

So you are now saying only white people have a God given right to bear arms today...

I clearly stated it was the Founders' belief, not today's.

...or do you think all citizens have that right by law.

By law, not all citizens have that right.

Conundrum, opinion or fact?

You sure do like that word, don't you?

[keystone183]

Stan! You stopped replying to me! I like it when that happens, its a good sign!:p

[stanc]

Stan! You stopped replying to me! I like it when that happens, its a good sign!:p

Oops! I overlooked the last post you made yesterday, I guess because it sneaked in just a few seconds ahead of the one I posted, judging by the time stamp.

Please point me to where Madison explains that, because of the milita system the rtkb is extended to only those in the milita...

:confused: I don't know of any such position being held by Madison.

[montana]

You sure do like that word, don't you?

co·nun·drum
kəˈnəndrəm/
noun
noun: conundrum; plural noun: conundrums

a confusing and difficult problem or question.
"one of the most difficult conundrums for the experts"
synonyms: problem, difficult question, difficulty, quandary, dilemma; informalposer
"the conundrums facing policy-makers"
a question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.
synonyms: riddle, puzzle, word game;

When debating you , it seems appropriate

[stanc]

It does indeed seem appropriate.

[keystone183]

Oops! I overlooked the last post you made yesterday, I guess because it sneaked in just a few seconds ahead of the one I posted, judging by the time stamp.


:confused: I don't know of any such position being held by Madison.

That being the case, i'll suggest your interpretation of the wording of the 2a is flimsy. It relies merely on proximity of words, and ignores the most directly worded portion of the statement. I realize it is your opinion, and you won't change it, but just letting you know, it isn't that strong a position!:o You're welcome!

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.

You can see the two quotes above, which are actually both correct to some extent. The idea of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is very clear. And i agree that it is indeed why Madison included it! However, the assertion that including that phrase, limits the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to merely the militia, is an overreach. Again, unless you can point me to some explanation or clarification from the time?

[stanc]

The idea of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is very clear. And i agree that it is indeed why Madison included it! However, the assertion that including that phrase, limits the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to merely the militia, is an overreach.

I agree. And in rereading this thread, I see that I did kinda make that assertion in post #54. :o

I really do not know why I wrote what I did in that post. Is it okay if I blame it on montana?

[bj139]

From here:http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/WhatState...sTeach.htm

"A recent opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggests that "bear arms" continues to encompass carrying guns for diverse purposes.[13] Analyzing the statutory phrase "carries a firearm," she wrote:

Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms") and Black's Law Dictionary indicate, "wear, bear, or carry...upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose...of being armed and ready for offensive or defense action in case of a conflict with another person."[14]"

I never thought I would welcome an opinion by Justice Ginsberg above the opinion of a member here.

[montana]

I agree. And in rereading this thread, I see that I did kinda make that assertion in post #60. :o

I really do not know why I wrote what I did in that post. Is it okay if I blame it on montana?

Sorry Stan, my wife has exclusive rights for putting blame on me.