[W:898]The Right To keep and Bear Arms Is Quite Clear:

[Beowulf]

I know what the Supreme Court has decided. Just pointing out that it isn’t consistent with the text, historical intent, or historical reality. Indeed, why predicate a right on the need for a militia if the two were intended to be separate issues? They effectively created a new right since the militia was replaced with a standing army and national guard and compulsory service went the way of the dodo.

Does the constitution say that the people of the several states may not possess firearms?

 

[Napoleon]

Again you are mistaken. The militia has not been replaced.

Title 10, Chapter 12, Section 246 of the US Code:

Yes it has. Modern day non-military gun owners may call themselves a militia, but that has no legally practical/actionable meaning. Certainly not what it meant in the 18th century.

 

[Beowulf]

Yes it has. Modern day non-military gun owners may call themselves a militia, but that has no legally practical/actionable meaning.

So joe public is not in the militia?

 

[Napoleon]

So joe public is not in the militia?

Joe public cannot legally perform the duties an 18th century person would understand them to be. He’s part of a militia in name only.

 

[Beowulf]

Joe public can not legally perform the duties an 18th century person would understand them to be.

Okay, so we agree that Joe Public is not in the militia. Thanks.

 

[Napoleon]

Okay, so we agree that Joe Public is not in the militia. Thanks.

Yes, which is why in reality the second amendment should not apply to non-service members. The right to keep and bear arms was established for military purposes not for funsies.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That right only exists because the Constitution says it does in the second amendment. As for a separation between the people and the militia - it is a rather ridiculous interpretation on the part of the Supreme Court since there was no distinction between the people and the militia at the time the Second Amendment was written and for many years after. The very text of the second amendment makes that abundantly clear. Never mind all the legislation involving compulsory military service.But since the Supreme Court has separated the two it has also said that bans which prohibit firearms that have no reasonable legal purpose are constitutional.

Nope, individual rights exist unless and until the government either takes them away or stops protecting them - the purpose of the BoR amendments was to seek to prevent that from being possible or at least easy.

 

[Beowulf]

Yes, which is why in reality the second amendment should not apply to non-service members. The right to keep and bear arms was established for military purposes not for funsies.

Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers allows it to restrict what items a person of one of the several states may possess?

 

[Napoleon]

Nope, individual rights exist unless and until the government either takes them away or stops protecting them - the purpose of the BoR amendments was to seek to prevent that from being possible or at least easy.

The BOR was created to grant rights that didn’t exist under English common law.

 

[Napoleon]

Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers allows it to restrict what items a person of one of the several states may possess?

Article 1 since the Congress and Supreme Court have decided to recognize an effectively honorary militia status for non-service members.

 

[Beowulf]

Article 1 since the Congress and Supreme Court have decided to recognize an effectively honorary militia status for non-service members.

Article 1 contains no language that would allow congress to restrict what items a person of one of the several states may posses.

Would you like to try again?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The BOR was created to grant rights that didn’t exist under English common law.

Citation required.

 

[Napoleon]

Article 1 contains no language that would allow congress to restrict what items a person of one of the several states may posses.

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”

A militia is a land force is it not?

 

[Glitch]

Yes it has. Modern day non-military gun owners may call themselves a militia, but that has no legally practical/actionable meaning. Certainly not what it meant in the 18th century.

I'm referring to the actual federal militia. The militia of the United States. Not State militias. The federal militia is very much alive and kicking, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.

Clearly you have no comprehension of what the militia is in the US, even though I provided you the specific law. Some people prefer to remain ignorant I suppose.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, which is why in reality the second amendment should not apply to non-service members. The right to keep and bear arms was established for military purposes not for funsies.

The founders, contemporary legal scholars of the time, and the Supreme Court (Cruikshank) and before, all noted that the second amendment recognizes a right NOT created or dependent on the constitution-a right that pre-exists the government and the constitution and one that clearly did not require membership in a government ordered body (militia) to vest.

 

[Glitch]

Okay, so we agree that Joe Public is not in the militia. Thanks.

If Joe Public meets the criteria specified in Title 10, Chapter 12, Section 246 of the US Code, then he is officially in the US militia. Or do you not believe in US laws either?

 

[Napoleon]

The founders, contemporary legal scholars of the time, and the Supreme Court (Cruikshank) and before, all noted that the second amendment recognizes a right NOT created or dependent on the constitution-a right that pre-exists the government and the constitution and one that clearly did not require membership in a government ordered body (militia) to vest.

Which is just nonsense sophistry. The only rights that exist are those which your fellow man allow you to have. There’s no such thing as an inherent right floating around in the ether.

 

[Beowulf]

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”

A militia is a land force is it not?

Um you're losing me now. We've already agreed that Joe Blow (which is to say anybody) is not a member of the militia.

So how does this language allow congress to restrict what items a person of one of the several states may posses.

 

[Beowulf]

If Joe Public meets the criteria specified in Title 10, Chapter 12, Section 246 of the US Code, then he is officially in the US militia. Or do you not believe in US laws either?

Either? I'm not sure what you mean by either.

 

[Napoleon]

Um you're losing me now. We've already agreed that Joe Blow (which is to say nobody) is not a member of the militia.

So how does this language allow congress to restrict what items a person of one of the several states may posses.

He isn’t in any legally actionable way. But, as I previously noted, Congress and the Supreme Court recognize an effectively honorary militia status for non service members.

 

[Beowulf]

He isn’t in any legally actionable way. But, as I previously noted, Congress and the Supreme Court recognize an effectively honorary militia status for non service members.

Okay, so what language in the constitution gives congress the power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess?

 

[Glitch]

Either? I'm not sure what you mean by either.

Napoleon pretends that US laws don't exist. Even after posting Title 10, Chapter 12, Section 246 of the US Code he continues to refuse that a United States militia exists. Since you agreed with him I naturally assumed you likewise didn't believe a federal militia continues to exist.

 

[Beowulf]

Napoleon pretends that US laws don't exist. Even after posting Title 10, Chapter 12, Section 246 of the US Code he continues to refuse that a United States militia exists. Since you agreed with him I naturally assumed you likewise didn't believe a federal militia continues to exist.

I don't agree with Napolean. Not in any way whatsoever.

 

[TurtleDude]

Which is just nonsense sophistry. The only rights that exist are those which your fellow man allow you to have. There’s no such thing as an inherent right floating around in the ether.

One of the silliest arguments I see in gun debates are ones where people try to avoid what the founders INTENDED the second amendment should do by attacking their belief in natural rights.

Its a specious collateral attack and does nothing to uundermine the fact that the founders intended the second to guarantee a right of self defense to citizens-whether they were eligible/able to serve in the militia or not.

 

[Napoleon]

I'm referring to the actual federal militia. The militia of the United States. Not State militias. The federal militia is very much alive and kicking, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.

Clearly you have no comprehension of what the militia is in the US, even though I provided you the specific law. Some people prefer to remain ignorant I suppose.

I don’t acknowledge that fact and neither does the law. Try performing the duties expected of an 18th century militia member and see what happens to you. I’m fact, didn’t some people recently try to do that on the border and find themselves in legal trouble?