Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[stanc]

Since the Heller case verified the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with "service" in a militia, it is also reasonable to assume that all people belong to the un-organized militia since all people have the right to bear arms...

a. It is factually incorrect to claim that "all people" have the right to bear arms. Some people are denied that right, such as convicted felons, mental defectives, and children.

b. It is unreasonable, illogical, and irrational to assume that all people belong to the unorganized militia, when the law that you yourself cited says it is comprised only of able-bodied, military-age males.

There is no historical reference to age discrimination for the right to bear arms because of the inability to serve in the arm forces. If there is, please show me.

I never said there was.

When Georgia in 1837 enacted the first ban on pistol ownership, its supreme court promptly struck it down, holding in the process that the second amendment applied to the states. It explained the amendment's meaning: "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed ... and this for the important end to be achieved, the rearing up and qualifying of a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state."

Things have changed in the last 181 years. Well-regulated militias have been superseded by the National Guard, thereby eliminating the need for members to provide their own weapons; there are minimum age limits for buying commonly-available firearms; there are restrictions on the types of arms that private citizens can legally keep and bear; and the courts have repeatedly affirmed -- as in Heller -- that the government can infringe on the RKBA.

[montana]

a. It is factually incorrect to claim that "all people" have the right to bear arms. Some people are denied that right, such as convicted felons, mental defectives, and children.

Yes, as all rights. I was talking about legal gun ownership.

a.b. It is unreasonable, illogical, and irrational to assume that all people belong to the unorganized militia, when the law that you yourself cited says it is comprised only of able-bodied, military-age males.

Then how does it logically and historically make it a right to bear arms if one is not in the militia?

a.I never said there was.

Once again,Then how does it logically and historically make it a right to bear arms if one is not in the militia?

a.Things have changed in the last 181 years. Well-regulated militias have been superseded by the National Guard, thereby eliminating the need for members to provide their own weapons; there are minimum age limits for buying commonly-available firearms; there are restrictions on the types of arms that private citizens can legally keep and bear; and the courts have repeatedly affirmed -- as in Heller -- that the government can infringe on the RKBA.

Yes, there are two sides to this debate. This is why elections do matter and which side appoints the judges who decides these questions.

[stanc]

It is unreasonable, illogical, and irrational to assume that all people belong to the unorganized militia, when the law that you yourself cited says it is comprised only of able-bodied, military-age males.

Then how does it logically and historically make it a right to bear arms if one is not in the militia?

I give up. How does it logically make it a right to keep and bear arms if one is not in the militia, when the 2A clearly links the militia and the RKBA? Why would the militia even be mentioned if the RKBA is independent of militia membership?

[montana]

I give up. How does it logically make it a right to keep and bear arms if one is not in the militia, when the 2A clearly links the militia and the RKBA? Why would the militia even be mentioned if the RKBA is independent of militia membership?

The right to bear arms is unconnected to the service "DC vs Heller", not being a member of the militia . All citizens are the militia,"Georgia supreme court 1837". Here is a great reference if you are truly interested by David T. Hardy, Partner in the Law Firm Sando & Hardy.http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html
Anti gun people will ignore historical evidence since it doesn't follow their agenda,hence the living breathing Constitution crowd. I too give up!

[keystone183]

I give up. How does it logically make it a right to keep and bear arms if one is not in the militia, when the 2A clearly links the militia and the RKBA? Why would the militia even be mentioned if the RKBA is independent of militia membership?

Correlation does not equal causation. I know that you believe your INTERPRETATION is the only one, but reality is, it is not. Personally I don't even find it to be the best one.....

[stanc]

All citizens are the militia,"Georgia supreme court 1837".

Military-age white males are the militia, "Militia Act 1792".

Military-age males and female members of the National Guard are the militia, "USC 246".

As defined by US law, the militia is not now, and never has been, all citizens.

[keystone183]

I agree. However, that is not an answer to the questions asked.

Now would you like to take another stab at answering the questions?

I did answer the questions! You just weren't able to recognize the answers. I believe that would be something related to confirmation bias.

I mentioned it before, but I suppose bears repeating. Some people read words that aren't there, a day skip ones that are!

[stanc]

I did answer the questions! You just weren't able to recognize the answers.

LOL. If there were any answers there, I definitely was not able to recognize them. :p

All I see in your previous post is a comment on my "INTERPRETATION" of something.

Which makes no sense, because I did not interpret anything -- I asked two questions.

[Swampfox]

If we look at the U.S. Constitution the 2nd amendment 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.”

George Mason of Virginia stated: “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

James Madison wrote (“Letters & Writings of James Madison,” 1865, p. 406): “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprise of ambition. … Kingdoms of Europe … are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

These are 2 of our founding fathers I know they would say Gun Ownership is a Right give to us by God. I’m sorry but I’m going to go a ramble, but we have allowed our government over the years to kill many of our freedoms. As with guns why the hell do we have to let the government tell us we are allowed to have a SBR, or a FA gun? The reason for 2nd amedment for the people to be the finial check to protect this country a tyrannical government. The idea is if the military or police force has a type of weapon the people should have it so they can protect the republic.

By the way I’m not debating the existence of God I’m stating what our founding fathers believed. So please let’s dont get in to something that will get the thread locked, because it doesn’t matter if you don’t believe and I do we all have the same rights. As supporters of the 2A we needed to stay united, and be curious of each other.

[stanc]

I’m sorry but I’m going to go a ramble, but we have allowed our government over the years to kill many of our freedoms. As with guns why the hell do we have to let the government tell us we are allowed to have a SBR, or a FA gun?

Why? Primarily because:

a. The courts (conservative and liberal) have upheld the laws.
b. The people did not force the government to rescind the laws.

The reason for 2nd amedment for the people to be the finial check to protect this country a tyrannical government. The idea is if the military or police force has a type of weapon the people should have it so they can protect the republic.

That's what the militia was supposed to do. What passes for the militia these days is the National Guard, which (except for nukes) does have the same types of weapons as the Federal government.

By the way I’m not debating the existence of God I’m stating what our founding fathers believed.

The Founding Fathers believed many things.

Most of them believed they had the right to enslave black people (who apparently were not endowed with any "God given" rights).

Nearly all of them believed that white women should not have the same rights as white men.

Thomas Jefferson believed that we should not go even 20 years without having a bloody, armed rebellion against the government.

I don't much care what the Founding Fathers believed. More important is what people today believe. And even more important is what they do.

[Swampfox]

Why? Primarily because:

a. The courts (conservative and liberal) have upheld the laws.
b. The people did not force the government to rescind the laws

That's what the militia was supposed to do. What passes for the militia these days is the National Guard, which (except for nukes) does have the same types of weapons as the Federal government.

The problem with this is the National Guard is controlled by government, not the people.

The Founding Fathers believed many things.

Most of them believed they had the right to enslave black people (who apparently were not endowed with any "God given" rights).

Nearly all of them believed that white women should not have the same rights as white men.

Thomas Jefferson believed that we should not go even 20 years without having a bloody, armed rebellion against the government.

I don't much care what the Founding Fathers believed. More important is what people today believe. And even more important is what they do.

I agree our Founding Fathers made mistakes, but when they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they put in avenues for wrongs to be corrected. Now as far as blacks being property some did others didn’t. If you research it many wanted to outlaw slavery, but many opposed it. The anti slavery FFs gave in to the ones that wanted slavery just to save the fledgling country.

[montana]

Why? Primarily because:

a. The courts (conservative and liberal) have upheld the laws.
b. The people did not force the government to rescind the laws.

You are not being factually honest here Stan, the DC vs Heller case rescinded the decades long handgun ban and how they are stored. The people did force the government to rescind those laws through the courts. Like I stated before elections do have consequences.

That's what the militia was supposed to do. What passes for the militia these days is the National Guard, which (except for nukes) does have the same types of weapons as the Federal government.

Again you are not being honest or correct about the militia. The militia laws are still in place.

The Militia Clauses

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/a...auses.html
The militia laws are still law whether you believe they are pointless or not.

The Founding Fathers believed many things.

Most of them believed they had the right to enslave black people (who apparently were not endowed with any "God given" rights).

Nearly all of them believed that white women should not have the same rights as white men.

Thomas Jefferson believed that we should not go even 20 years without having a bloody, armed rebellion against the government..
I don't much care what the Founding Fathers believed..

Your personal feelings of the founding fathers has zero relevance to this discussion. The founders intent with our gun rights is another.

More important is what people today believe. And even more important is what they do.

Yes it is important what people believe and do today,"elections matter", but when some people completely disregard historical content, context and intent, there is no point in trying to have a discussion or dialog with those same people about our gun rights.

[bj139]

That's the key issue. If the Second Amendment were not meant to protect the supply of weapons for the militia, why does it have the prefatory clause?

If it was intended to protect the use of guns for sporting and other civilian use, it seems like it would simply say, "The right to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed."

Instead it specifies "Arms" (which in the context of the time meant military weapons), and links their possession and use to "well regulated" organized militia units.

The prefatory clause may be the reason but it has nothing to do with the right of the people as stated.

Saying the militia is not needed anymore that therefore the right is not needed anymore is just an infringement of that right.

Arms are arms. Nothing links their possession to "well regulated" militia units. I think this is correct and obviously the Supreme Court agrees.

[stanc]

I agree our Founding Fathers made mistakes, but when they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they put in avenues for wrongs to be corrected.

Whoa. Back up a bit, pardner. I said nothing about the Founding Fathers making "mistakes." I was noting that they were racists and sexists who considered only white men as being equal and endowed with God given, unalienable rights, not white women or people of other colors.

Now as far as blacks being property some did others didn’t. If you research it many wanted to outlaw slavery, but many opposed it.

I know that some, like Mason and Washington, said that they opposed slavery, but continued to practice it. Their words were contradicted by their actions.

The anti slavery FFs gave in to the ones that wanted slavery just to save the fledgling country.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." ~ Ayn Rand

[Swampfox]

Whoa. Back up a bit, pardner. I said nothing about the Founding Fathers making "mistakes." I was noting that they were racists and sexists who considered only white men as being equal and endowed with God given, unalienable rights, not white women or people of other colors.


I know that some, like Mason and Washington, said that they opposed slavery, but continued to practice it. Their words were contradicted by their actions.


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." ~ Ayn Rand

I don’t feel that they were racist or sexist. For this reason it was time that they lived in. Hind site is 20/20. We only see them as racist or sexist due to the time we live in. Now GW did have one slave, but and it is big by law he couldn’t set him free. His slave was treated as a family member, and if I recall correctly he put it in his like will open his death his slave would be free.

[stanc]

You are not being factually honest here Stan, the DC vs Heller case rescinded the decades long handgun ban and how they are stored. The people did force the government to rescind those laws through the courts.

There is nothing factually dishonest about my previous statements. Heller is not relevant. I was addressing Swampfox's question about needing government approval to own SBR's and full-auto guns. The courts have upheld the NFA and similar State laws, and the people have not forced the government to rescind the NFA or similar State laws.

[stanc]

That's the key issue. If the Second Amendment were not meant to protect the supply of weapons for the militia, why does it have the prefatory clause?
If it was intended to protect the use of guns for sporting and other civilian use, it seems like it would simply say, "The right to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed."
Instead it specifies "Arms" (which in the context of the time meant military weapons), and links their possession and use to "well regulated" organized militia units.

The prefatory clause may be the reason but it has nothing to do with the right of the people as stated.

The prefatory clause may be the reason for the RKBA but it has nothing to do with the RKBA??? Seriously?

Saying the militia is not needed anymore that therefore the right is not needed anymore is just an infringement of that right.

That's not true. An infringement would only occur by enactment of a law or regulation that adversely affects the RKBA. Merely saying the militia is not needed wouldn't affect the RKBA.

It's also not what I said.

Arms are arms. Nothing links their possession to "well regulated" militia units.

Sentence construction of the Second Amendment links the militia with the RKBA.

I think this is correct and obviously the Supreme Court agrees.

I think that's not exactly what the court said.

[stanc]

I don’t feel that they were racist or sexist. For this reason it was time that they lived in. Hind site is 20/20. We only see them as racist or sexist due to the time we live in.

ROFL.

Now GW did have one slave...

One??? LOL. Try a couple hundred. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/l...aves-1799/

[montana]

There is nothing factually dishonest about my previous statements. Heller is not relevant. I was addressing Swampfox's question about needing government approval to own SBR's and full-auto guns. The courts have upheld the NFA and similar State laws, and the people have not forced the government to rescind the NFA or similar State laws.

You are correct about the NFA laws, my mistake for applying it to all gun laws.

What you have quoted are not "The Militia Clauses." They are paragraphs from Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
They are not "militia laws" and they do not contradict what I said, so I have no idea what you're objecting to. :confused:That's what the militia was supposed to do. What passes for the militia these days is the National Guard, which (except for nukes) does have the same types of weapons as the Federal government.

The last time I looked, the Constitution was the law of the land and clause 15 and 16 of Article I Section 8 are the militia clauses of the Constitution so they are laws about the militia LOL! The organized and un-organized militia belong to these clauses, "even though you acknowledge only one, doesn't make the other irrelevant lol.

:confused: I did not express my "personal feelings" about the Founding Fathers. I listed some of their beliefs.

I quote you:

I don't much care what the Founding Fathers believed.....

Sounds like personal feelings to me

:I dunno. I still am willing to discuss the subject with you, despite your disregard of historical content and context.

Please, do tell me where I disregard historical content and context! I noticed you had no objection to the intent part LOL!

[stanc]

The last time I looked, the Constitution was the law of the land and clause 15 and 16 of Article I Section 8 are the militia clauses of the Constitution so they are laws about the militia LOL!

They still do not contradict what I said, so I still have no idea what you were objecting to.

The organized and un-organized militia belong to these clauses, "even though you acknowledge only one, doesn't make the other irrelevant lol.

I acknowledge only one what?

Please, do tell me where I disregard historical content and context!

You keep saying that all citizens are the militia, even though Federal law dating back to 1792 says different.

I noticed you had no objection to the intent part LOL!

I just didn't bother, because the Founders' intent is arguable. Plus, you didn't answer my previous questions related to Madison's intent with his wording of the 2A: How does it logically make it a right to keep and bear arms if one is not in the militia, when the 2A clearly links the militia and the RKBA? Why would the militia even be mentioned if the RKBA is independent of militia membership?