Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[montana]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqGBOt32NM

[grayfox]

Right On!!!
The one difference I gather from other earlier discussions is his reference to the term "free state" -- he puts this as referring to the country as a whole, so that being a free state means free from tyranny, and thus to that end the people (the same "people" who can petition their government, ie, "the people" refers NOT to the government itself but the people) keep and bear arms.

I would guess, as a caveat, that this expresses a right that USA citizens have. Other countries may or may not recognize this right for their citizens... It would be a much larger discussion to have, as to whether all people everywhere ought to have such a right or not. Since nations by definition have sovereignty over their internal affairs, I'll personally stick to the point of whether here in the USA, citizens have such a right.

But I see another aspect of this as well, and that is, under our system the proper role of the "government" is to safeguard this right, not to grant it. I see a big difference in those two roles.

[montana]

Right On!!!
The one difference I gather from other earlier discussions is his reference to the term "free state" -- he puts this as referring to the country as a whole, so that being a free state means free from tyranny, and thus to that end the people (the same "people" who can petition their government, ie, "the people" refers NOT to the government itself but the people) keep and bear arms.

I would guess, as a caveat, that this expresses a right that USA citizens have. Other countries may or may not recognize this right for their citizens... It would be a much larger discussion to have, as to whether all people everywhere ought to have such a right or not. Since nations by definition have sovereignty over their internal affairs, I'll personally stick to the point of whether here in the USA, citizens have such a right.

But I see another aspect of this as well, and that is, under our system the proper role of the "government" is to safeguard this right, not to grant it. I see a big difference in those two roles.

Exactly, well stated!

[stanc]

It's illogical to consider the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment as a "justification" clause. None of the other individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights has one. If the 2nd Amendment had not been meant to ensure availability of military arms to the members of organized State militias, it would've just said: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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.

[montana]

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Quote:Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

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.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

[stanc]

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Quote:Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

The reason that the Second Amendment wasn't framed that way is because "well regulated" did not refer to being regulated by Congress. It meant being properly trained, equipped, and subject to military regulations.

[NugginFutz]

The reason that the Second Amendment wasn't framed that way is because "well regulated" did not refer to being regulated by Congress. It meant being properly trained, equipped, and subject to military regulations.

Ok - I'll bite. Where in the 2A does it say "properly trained, equipped, and subject to military regulations"?

Surely, you must have also read the preceding two paragraphs.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.
The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

The author clearly states that the interpretation you are applying, Stan, is erroneous. It does not fit the "context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation."

[Bigs28]

While i don't agree with much of anything stanc says and he's been on my ignore for a very long time, i feel like many of these threads are started to specifically antagonize him.

It's getting old seeing pointless threads created just ti start a fight that don't benefit the 6.5 grendel forum and the people that come here to learn about the cartridge.

[keystone183]

You guys can stop arguing with stanc. We fleshed this out before. His "interpretation" of the words are best "interpretation" of the words. And as such they aren't actually an "interpretation". He can just read better than the rest of us.......:p

[montana]

Guys, Stan has made me do my homework and I do not post to antagonize him. He can make a guy want to pull his hair out at times, but his many assessments have been used by the opposition and he has made viable arguments more times than I would care to admit. I believe this is what a forum is for, to discuss, trade thoughts and opinions. I have never learned anything singing or listening to the same old music.

[Bigs28]

This is a forum about a specific gun cartridge which a large percentage of its members are from the United States. You ask if owning a gun is a right. 99% of this forum will say yes. You are looking for the 1% response. If you are continually involved in thread after thread that gets locked by the admins then get the hint.

[montana]

This is a forum about a specific gun cartridge which a large percentage of its members are from the United States. You ask if owning a gun is a right. 99% of this forum will say yes. You are looking for the 1% response. If you are continually involved in thread after thread that gets locked by the admins then get the hint.

I can take a hint LOL, and will stop posting 2ndA news and information if the mods request it. Stan is a former gun writer and pro gun if you have paid attention. He disagrees with how those rights are interpreted and has given a very solid case for his opinion on many occasions, even though I and others may disagree. The post get locked when people get upset, emotional or goes too long or off topic. If you disapprove of these discussions then I would suggest clicking to the info you are only interested in. Our ability to confront the anti gun crowed does not get sharpened by only listening to the 99% pro gun crowed. Besides, I like Stan and do value his take on all subjects. One can have a respectful friendship with an opponent.

[grayfox]

I, too, do not post to antagonize or troll anyone. I agree with Montana and others, and think in addition it is especially important for us to lay these out in print, discuss, and examine them since schools apparently for the most part are not teaching this, nor are they teaching students to think.

Many in our younger generations need to see and read these things if we are to continue to enjoy the 2A as it is written and as it is intended to be, when we are old and retired. This becomes an important part of "passing the torch" along in the relay race of life. Freedom, democracy, and independent thought are only a generation away from extinction at any point in time. We need to teach and espouse these things diligently.

I'm a grandpa now and one of my most serious jobs is to pass along sound teaching, clear thinking, and wisdom to my grandchildren.

[montana]

I, too, do not post to antagonize or troll anyone. I agree with Montana and others, and think in addition it is especially important for us to lay these out in print, discuss, and examine them since schools apparently for the most part are not teaching this, nor are they teaching students to think.

Many in our younger generations need to see and read these things if we are to continue to enjoy the 2A as it is written and as it is intended to be, when we are old and retired. This becomes an important part of "passing the torch" along in the relay race of life. Freedom, democracy, and independent thought are only a generation away from extinction at any point in time. We need to teach and espouse these things diligently.

I'm a grandpa now and one of my most serious jobs is to pass along sound teaching, clear thinking, and wisdom to my grandchildren.

From one old fart to the other, well stated!

[stanc]

Ok - I'll bite. Where in the 2A does it say "properly trained, equipped, and subject to military regulations"?
Surely, you must have also read the preceding two paragraphs.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
The author clearly states that the interpretation you are applying, Stan, is erroneous. It does not fit the "context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation."

No, I did not click on that link and read the two paragraphs you posted, but the most important part of them says essentially the same thing that I said.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. ...government regulation was not the intended meaning.

..."well regulated" did not refer to being regulated by Congress.

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.

The unorganized militia was not "a well regulated militia," because its members were not required to even own a gun, let alone be skilled in military operations.

[stanc]

While i don't agree with much of anything stanc says and he's been on my ignore for a very long time, i feel like many of these threads are started to specifically antagonize him.

I don't feel the least bit antagonized. To the contrary, I enjoy philosophical discussions.

It's getting old seeing pointless threads created just ti start a fight that don't benefit the 6.5 grendel forum and the people that come here to learn about the cartridge.

If you have come to Room 2A to learn about the cartridge, you are in the wrong place.

[PAsasquatch]

It's illogical to consider the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment as a "justification" clause. None of the other individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights has one. If the 2nd Amendment had not been meant to ensure availability of military arms to the members of organized State militias, it would've just said: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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.

What they meant by "well regulated" will be up for debate until the end of time. The description is still pertaining to the word militia, so I went to my main man who does my definitions.
Definition of militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

The militia was called to quell the riot.

b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service


Old Webster clearly states that the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
I signed up for selective service(the draft) therefore; I am in this description.

[NugginFutz]

No, I did not click on that link and read the two paragraphs you posted, but the most important part of them says essentially the same thing that I said.

Nor did you answer the initial question.

"Where in the 2A does it say "properly trained, equipped, and subject to military regulations"?

[stanc]

What they meant by "well regulated" will be up for debate until the end of time.

Agree.

The description is still pertaining to the word militia...

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.

[bj139]

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