I'm certainly no expert in this area, but to think of it as a collective, not an individual right, means a lot of the 2A justifications for gun ownership would disappear.

Plus, of course, as all of you reading this know, a lot of people think that the 2A means that those who own guns need to belong formally to a militia, which of course would have a profound impact on gun ownership. Not so much for the genuinely responsible gun owners, but for the nut cases out there, of whom there are far too many.

...the world is populated by two groups of people, the responsible and everyone else. Is there a means to prejudge every one of them and truly know ahead?

were individual and natural (and necessarily pre-dating the nation and its governing documents), with the federal government's role as that of defending these rights. Some have described the language of he Bill as "negativist" in structure ("Congress shall make no law...&quot . In a real sense, the language is far more powerful and economical than if government was seen as a doler of rights; if rights are given, rights can be taken away.

According communal rights results in endless definitions of what a community is, how many there are, and how a community's rights are defended (or not). Some have speculated that the expression "the People" implies communal rights, most notably in the 4th; yet even here the government is charged with describing in a warrant "....the persons...to be seized." It seems obvious to me that rights must necessarily be individual if there is any chànce the government will have the legitimacy and power to defend them.

I have no problem with the expressions "right to an education, housing, health care, jobs, etc." But these are terms of art and not rights, and nevertheless well within the powers of the government's charged duties in the original Articles. (For that matter, states do not have rights either.)

The so-called "militia clause" seems more like a reminder of the powers the government has regarding the calling up of a militia, as explained in Article 1, and not a conditioner of the individual RKBA. As some have pointed out, the mention of militia may have been political, to assuage the fears states who were distrustful of a standing army; after all, the BOR was undergoing the quite political process of ratification. Far from the people being restricted by militia service if they wish to bear arms, the government is restricted to only calling up its citizens (Article 1) who already have the pre-existing RKBA.

Guns are not a "right". Guns are a "wrong".

Second Commandment or no Second Commandment.

...beyond simply declaring it?

If not, then it is as easily dismissed as any other unsupported assertion. The whole "because I say so" thing really only works on children -- and even then, only to a certain point.

I'm old and tired, but here's somebody actively supporting my assertion with a little Australian Style Gun Control.

And as you can plainly see, Australians Do It With Style!

And if, by "support", you actually mean words, not actions, such as providing quotes from Holy Scripture, well...he does that, too!

Although his Scriptural reference is not from the Second Commandment that you hold so Sacred, but rather a quotation from Isaiah.

You have no actual argument to support your assertion, beyond yet more assertions and some irrelevant pictures.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not particularly compelling. I guess when you don't have a real argument, you want to try to do anything you can to distract from that fact.

Have yourself a great day.

...I have seen too much to walk around afraid for my own personal safety.

Things happen in life, and there will come a time, in everyone's life, where that 'big one' will be just too big to fight.

And I pray every night that the 'big one' comes - for all my loved ones and friends - in the form of a really long night's sleep, somewhere in the triple digits of age.

But that's not reality.

My philosophy is that at a certain age, it's time to switch over to concern for one's self to concern for the younger generation, and to at least help them get to as old as I am, hopefully much older.

For some, that means working (or at least hoping) to rid your surroundings of the 'tools' of violence.

I respect that, actually. I do.

Do not own a weapon if you do not support the ownership of weapons.

Live in a location that prohibits the ownership of weapons if you support government restrictions of weapons.

Many people have done exactly that. They live in places - some very lovely places such as gentrifying Brooklyn - where weapons are all but entirely banned.

So much so, that it seems as if they live in a weapons free environment.

But I also know, in reality, that it is folly. It is an illusion of safety. I would be doing my family, and especially my children, a disservice of epic proportions if I was not able to protect them from as many threats as I could reasonably prepare for.

1. I have simplified the threats into two general categories. Natural and man-made.

Natural disasters, economic melt-downs and other large scale regional or national issues are not the topic here.

As for man-made threats...

Considering where the world seems to be headed, there are two types of people we need to be concerned with as it relates to the ability to defend against predators.

I know there are many other people on earth , but consider only...

B. Two categories of people:

In one group are the people who have a reasonably comfortable life with, at minimum; acceptable housing, sufficient food, workable transportation, some savings, and more importantly, a liberal (in the true sense of the word) worldview on freedom of religion, speech, women's equality and personal safety.

And in the other group are those that would fight to take it away.

C. Of the latter group, are those that:

- Would fight to take what we have through political and economic manipulation of the system, by suppressing wages, unions, the media, worker protection and the availability of rewarding, well-paying jobs.

- Would use violence to achieve political or economic objectives. Anything from street violence to full-on Charlie Hebdo terrorism.

For the above two threats, we only truly have two tools at our disposal...

D. Two tools that are guaranteed to us, not only by the Constitution, by by god herself.

- The right of free speech/assembly/religion.

- The right to the tools of self defense.

Unfortunateley there are some that would work to give up, not only their own rights, but other people's rights to half of the above.

That's is what I find unacceptable.

because posting pictures and cartoons isn't doing anything for your cause.

Posting cartoons probably makes him one of the leaders in Gun Control activism.

Since they tend to be cheap (no donations or membership $$), Lazy, (they never seem to show up anywhere to support their "deeply held beliefs&quot posting somebody else cartoons online makes him one of the foremost gun control leaders on DU, if not the entire US.

Such a shame he never sticks around too long though.

from the other gun-control extremists here.

...that only the Government, i.e. the police and armed forces, should have access to firearms?

Reading is Fundamental!

Why are you claiming that I support an idea that I just told you that I rejected?

...just how delusional your position really is. You want to live in a world where firearms are uninvented, which will have the effect of turning bad guys into rainbow-farting math professors and put a stop to all murder and unwanted death. Amirite?

such as this directly. A simple yes or no is all that's needed to dispel any doubt about your intended meaning. Instead you rely on vague verbiage and oblique references. Why is that? It seems little more than a rather clumsy attempt to appear intellectually superior, even divine in your wisdom. If that is the case, you are failing spectacularly.

Obviously guns are inanimate objects and rights are abstracts. I infer that you mean the ownership and use of weapons is wrong. If I missed something there, please explain it. Is that universal are there exceptions?


Also, please explain your concept of a "right". It would be a bit difficult to agree on what is and is not a right without sharing a common definition of that term.


The Bill of Rights names several rights and by the canon of construction known as in pari materia (upon the same matter) the meaning of the word "right" must be consistent. I am, however, more interested now in understanding what you mean by the term "right" and which of the so named principles in the BoR you do accept.


Thanks in advance.

I suppose this falls inder in pari materia much as the "individual rights" does.

Before any thing else you must be able to defend yourself, family and property.

1A. Law Officers in our society are civilians. They don't like to use the term, but they are nonetheless. The only non-civilians in American society are sworn military personnel, and they are rarely (there are exceptions) allowed to carry firearms on US soil.

1B. Therefore any disarmament of US civilians, any restrictions on type of weapon, ammunition capacity, rate of fire, etc. must equally apply to law enforcement.

2A. The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement is not responsible to come to the aid of any individual person in society, that an officer's sidearm is primarily for personal defense.

2B. Therefore any firearm in common possession by law officers (who are civilians) should be available to the general civilian population, who hold equal status to law officers.

3A. Collective Rights argument - still supports private ownership, in that if a body of civilians are to respond to a call to arms, the arms have to be trained with, well maintained and available for use.

3B. In other words, they have to be somewhere, and my house is a great place to start storing them.

If the Militias were still made from a vast body of the people (vs select few); if the congress mandated that all eligible people (with minor exceptions) arm themselves at the least with similar military-grade arms/accoutrements & muster often enough to be well-regulated; if the States still wielded as much power and relied less on the central govt, I think there would be much less arguing about what was meant.

Do not underestimate the importance of the State Militias at this time, or the people's duty and right in composing them. The existing Militias were recognized and given vital roles to fill when in federal service in Article 1 and Article 4, so the Constitution had already secured the right of keeping arms to the people for Militia service. And Congress was to provide for how they, the Militias, would be armed and regulated. But important to note Congress was given NO such power over the people themselves.

Because of the Militias, because of the peoples' role in them, the 2nd amendment doubles down - the people have the right to arms explicitly secure in the 2nd because the people were supposed to compose well-regulated Militias, and Congress had been given powers to provide for how the Militias would be armed and regulated. (i.e. through non/malfeasance could they easily be DISarmed? (or otherwise rendered ineffective)).

I do not think the individual right of the people to arms depends on some "collective" role in the militias, but there seems little doubt that is why it was secured.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html
[17 Aug.]

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia?...

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army"

There are many - some distinct and some overlapping - tiers of military personnel and civilians who could theoretically be called upon to defend our nation.

1. ACTIVE DUTY FORCES
a. The active duty military - to summarize - those uniformed men and women who get up every day and go to work as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coasties.
b. Reserves - whom have been called to active duty - they are always part of the US Army
c. National Guard - whom have been federalized and placed under the US Army

2. ORGANIZED MILITIA
a. The National Guard - when operating under the Governor of the respective state
b. The State Guards (for states that do have them) AKA State Military Reserves

3. UNORGANIZED MILITIA
a. The body of men (and women) of a certain age who could be called upon to assist the above, or even fight on their own.

2. ORGANIZED MILITIA
a. The National Guard - when operating under the Governor of the respective state
b. The State Guards (for states that do have them) AKA State Military Reserves

3. UNORGANIZED MILITIA
a. The body of men (and women) of a certain age who could be called upon to assist the above, or even fight on their own.

CoFirstSgt above paraphrases the US militia code.
The UNorganized militia is a JOKE. An unorganized mob is no more an army than loose bricks & mortar a house {famous roman saying}.
The UNorganized militia does not pass the 2nd amendment litmus test, which clearly calls for a 'well regulated militia'. By definition of unorganized, the UNorganized militia is NOT well regulated. It is a citizens miltia, but it is not well regulated. The national guard is not what the founding fathers wanted either, since it is not a citizens militia, just a select militia, which the founding fathers feared.
The unorganized militia does not meet regularly, has no officers, no pay, no retirement plan, for cripes sake does not even have a mobilization point.
Most all americans pass thru the 'unorg'd militia' phase without even realizing they were in it.

The unorganized militia has not been activated since wwII on the west coast due japanese invasion hysteria, and only about 5,000 showed up, about half or more were wwI vets. They patrolled the oregon coast centered at Ft Stevens, and the one time they spotted an IJN sub they withheld cannon fire, since the {naive worried} UNorganized commander thought by firing at the japanese submarine he would give away his position, and allow the invasion which the sub was leading, to succeed!
THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA IS A JOKE.

The UNorg'd militia has not been activated in any armed sense since then. Governors & the President agree that to mobilize the unorg'd militia would cause more problems than they could possibly cure. Thousands of armed americans together in a large locale, wow, what a disaster waiting to happen, eh?
I suppose if alien monsters invade from outer space, the UNorg'd militia might as well be mobilized, but until that, let's just let the UNorg'd militia think they are really helping out to defend the country (wink wink).

...you are not retired military.

Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

When I stood at my classroom window in Brooklyn, watching the twin towers fall, many of my colleagues were in tears.

Besides myself, only one other teacher in the building was prior service.

As I was standing by the window, he walked over to me, and put his hand on my shoulder.

"I feel bad for them, I really do" He said, nodding his head toward a cluster of teachers also standing by a window.

"Why is that?" I replied.

"They don't have a Marine Corps that will take them back in a heartbeat." He said.

For me it was another 10 years in the Guard. The Marine was deployed three times.

I don't see the joke in any of that.

sergeant: . I take it......you are not retired military.

Correct technically, I wasn't a lifer, but in a sense retired since I'll never re-up again; ~3 yrs active & 12 in reserves, got the token meritorious service award after 12 I think it was (navy). Also marksman badge fwiw.

sergeant: Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.

So? I noted most of the Unorg militia who showed up during wwII were wwI vets (tho that provision may not even've been in effect then).
But more proof the UNorg'd militia as an organization is a joke. Explain how after 6 yrs military service one is exempt from further obligatory service, yet still obligated to do 'UNORGANIZED' militia duty (whatever that is). I wouldn't show up for Unorg'd miiitia & there's not a whit they could do, and my veteran status & 4 honorables could not be revoked nor downgraded.
Former military members evidently are considered part of this cosmetic glitter called the (feel good) unorganized militia, but any vet worth his salt would be cautious of affiliating with a lot of unorganized armed rabble.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

sergeant: When I stood at my classroom window in Brooklyn, watching the twin towers fall, many of my colleagues were in tears. Besides myself, only one other teacher in the building was prior service. As I was standing by the window, he walked over to me, and put his hand on my shoulder. "I feel bad for them, I really do" He said, nodding his head toward a cluster of teachers also standing by a window. "Why is that?" I replied. "They don't have a Marine Corps that will take them back in a heartbeat." He said. For me it was another 10 years in the Guard. The Marine was deployed three times.
I don't see the joke in any of that

Haven't the foggiest idea what you're driving at, it's not all about you. And you were not deployed under the auspices of the Unorganized militia, but either the NG or the corps. Affiliation with the unorg'd militia had nowt to do with anything. Thousands of unorg'd militia are denied admission to the regular US military every year.
Hundreds of thousands of violent & property crimes and gun murder are committed in the USA every single year, done probably mostly by members of the 'unorganized militia', and you're trying to evoke sympathy from 9/11 due some teachers somehow losing their jobs? or did they all lose a relative or friend etc?

No one with even an adequate grasp of linguistic analysis will argue otherwise. The ascription of the right to "the people" is unequivocal, and the structure of the introductory clause is not such that it restricts that right to the militia (it instead provides a justification for preserving the people's right).

I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on the legal aspects...not my field.

That the framers wanted to make the First Amendment more wordy, but still have the same meaning...

1A. The ability to attend a church of one's own preference being necessary for individual spirituality...
... the right of the people to practice free exercise of religion shall not be infringed.

1B. The ability of the people to read newspapers of their choosing being necessary to an informed populace...
..... the right of the people to exercise free speech shall not be infringed.

1C. The ability to exchange ideas in a group setting being necessary for a democracy,,,
.....the right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed.

1D. The ability to express displeasure at elected officials being necessary to maintain responsive government...
...the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances shall not be infringed.

In no place in the above do the introductory clauses change the meaning of the operative clauses.

The rights remain the same. The introductory clauses just clarify the right. They do not limit it.

Therefore, the following two statements mean the exact same thing:

1. A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

tortoise: .. those who tried to use the "British scholars" paper to discredit Heller did themselves an unintentional harm. Here is an excerpt taken from a recent post that represents the scholarly dissent to Heller, concerning collective versus individual rights:

Well you've certainly twisted 180 degrees what the british scholars actually wrote, when you emboldened your 'individual right' argument. How can the thought be right before your very eyes & yet you misconstrue it so badly? The 'individual right' was explained as being an individual right to bear arms in a militia:

tortoise excerpted british scholars: In {DC} v. Heller (2008), the {US Supreme} Court examined the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, correctly finding that the right to “have arms” in Article VII is the basis of the right enshrined in the Second Amendment.
The Court also correctly recognized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right to have and use arms for “self preservation and defense” as in its English predecessor.
However, contrary to discredited scholarship upon which Heller relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm. Accordingly, the right to own or use arms for private purposes is not a right deeply rooted in our nation’s tradition..

tortoise: The theme throughout this is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms both as part of a militia, and for hunting, personal defense, and protection against oppression. This is not a collective right.

If it's not a collective right, why did 80% of the states you cite claim it as a militia/collective right?
Tortoise then goes on to cite madison's brigade website, which clearly pegs original state views circa 1776 - 1790, as either being for a collective right only {8} or a lesser few {2, Vermont, Pennsy} for being a militia-centric right, but none solely for an individual right. Even pennsylvania included militia, as anti-militia quaker Wm Penn had been:

Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of US Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitutions:

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776) That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

DELAWARE (Sep 11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

PENNSYLVANIA (Sep 28, 1776) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

MARYLAND Nov11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NORTH CAROLINA Dec18, 1776) that the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

VERMONT July 8, 1777 That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State

MASSACHUSETTS Oct25, 1780) The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

NEW HAMPSHIRE June 2, 1784) A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

NEW YORK CONVENTION July 7,1788) That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.

RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION May 29, 1790) That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

It was an individual right under English law. Yes, it may have only extended to the common defense as the English Crown intended it, but that is not what was written into the second amendment. Otherwise, it would have said "The right of the People to keep and bear arms for the common defense".

Not one of these states limited the possession of arms to militias. 5 states actually stated the right (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island). of those 5, 2 included personal defense, two talked about defense of the state/common defense, and one (Rhode Island) simply stated the right to keep and bear arms. Non of them had a clause including a word or phrase such as "only" or "limited to".

Here is some additional material. Once again, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms.
Source: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC7

I. Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

Second Amendment: 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.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense (1796). 9

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11

II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions

12
Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

As you can see, there is nothing here that limits the right to militia service only. Any interpretation as such is only possible by ignoring facts in evidence, and represents only the person's wish that it be so...

Please don't feed the raccoons.

The idea of a 'group right' is counter to the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.