View Single Post
Old 09-06-2019, 09:30 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,055
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
The word's appearance in the declaratory clause does not mean that it has any legal weight WRT militia, that it directs or controls or mandates any structure or action or condition to exist.

The "full execution" of militia powers is only to be found in the body of the Constitution; the 2nd Amendment has noting to offer and is ignored. There are no latent, undefined powers to be found in the 2nd Amendment that would allow it to be interpreted the way you do. Your position is a complete perversion that has no support in the philosophical foundation, historical record or legal precedent of this Republic.

While the 2nd Amendment has no legal action WRT militia, it was mentioned one time in those militia cases, in Justice Story's dissent in Houston v. Moore. I guess he thought should at least look at it to see if it said anything about militia issues, but he discovered:
"The [Second] Amendment to the Constitution, declaring that "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," may not, perhaps, be thought to have any important bearing."
If SCOTUS long ago decided the 2nd Amendment does not have any militia implications, no connections or any latent influence on the organized militia and really has nothing to say on the subject, why can't you accept that? More importantly, how do you justify claiming the 2nd Amendment has this influence, especially imparting militia conditions and qualifications on the people's right to arms?
Except that lots of people who argue for gun rights, some of them in this thread, use the militia argument to justify their position. But never mind all that. You concede that this is a wrong position to take on RKBA. I'm fine with that and glad to be able to finally put it to rest.

Can we then explore your position that RKBA is a "natural right"? My understanding of natural rights in the context of the Constitution is as follows:

The members of the Continental Congress made only two minor changes in the opening paragraphs of Jefferson's draft declaration. In these two paragraphs, Jefferson developed some key ideas: "all men are created equal," "inalienable rights," "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It goes on at length, but does not mention anything about guns as a natural or unalienable right. Now, the Constitution mentions RKBA explicitly. But again, in the context of a well-regulated militia. So I'm trying to understand how you get from guns being an unalienable right while hand waving away the entire context in which they are explicitly mentioned.
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.