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:
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.
Your link talks about the Declaration of Independence. You can certainly use that as a way of understanding the Constitution, in fact, you probably should. But the DoI says that there are inalienable rights, that governments exist to secure those rights. So when they set up the Constitution, they were doing what the DoI said they should be doing - setting up a government to secure natural/inalienable rights for the citizens of the USA.
In the 2A, they said “we have to have a militia, therefore we need to be clear that the government has to secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
If you want to understand the Constitution in the context of the Declaration of Independence, that’s the context, and that’s what they did.
Then it should be easy to show where else, in what other great moral or religious codes or the world or in what great works of philosophy, the right to keep and bear arms can be found.
Yes they did but you choose to ignore that and take three words, pluck them out and “interpret” them in bias confirming isolation, divorced from the entirety of the framer’s explanations.
And you can not understand that the “object” of the 2nd Amendment, the why the pre-existing, fundamental, never surrendered any aspect of it, right to keep and bear arms is being secured from government interference, speaks to the types of weapons that are held completely immune from government’s sticky fingers.
Miller cites Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, at 158, directly on this point, Aymette gives us an overview of why the right to arms is secured, the types of arms that are irrevocably protected and some reasoning why some types of arms are not immune from government regulation:
[INDENT]"The object, then, for which the right of keeping and bearing arms is secured is the defence of the public. The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution . . . As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of a general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."[/INDENT]
This is why the Miller Court, having only heard the government’s arguments because no briefs were filed for Miller’s side and there was no appearance at oral arguments explaining any military usefulness for a sawed-off shotgun, said:
[INDENT]"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."[/INDENT]
The right is not conditioned upon a citizen’s militia association, the right is protected in nearly absolute fashion for the types of arms that the citizens would use to “defend the public” – assuming the government is operating legitimately – and “to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution” – if the government ever begins overstepping its limits. Both of these actions have the people operating in concert (like the right to assemble) but the right is secured individually.
If the government can decree conditions and qualifications on the right as you envision, to the point of saying the right can be restricted, how can the citizens “have these arms in their hands”? How are they “prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority”?
Sounds to me that what you envision for the right to arms is exactly the kind of “encroachments upon their rights by those in authority” the people should be wary of and be ready to repel.
Please explain how the militia (not the people, a distinction you ignore) becomes “well regulated”?
Well, the framers told us, you just refuse to read it, refuse to understand it and refuse to apply it to your consideration on the subject. After explaining what the obligation of having the militia actually be “well regulated” meant to the nation, the conclusion was that requiring the militia to be “well regulated” was unrealistic and "must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable, because (paragraph break added):
[INDENT]"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured."[/INDENT]
Well, since Hamilton is telling everyone the absurdity for reading the actual militia clauses as demanding the militia be “well regulated”, do you see how stupid it is to argue the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment, which isn’t even a complete sentence, demands it?
The final conclusion on this matter was summed up like this:
[INDENT]“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”[/INDENT]
Uhhhhh . . . “We the People”.
Of course the framers assumed that “We the People” would forever hold the “self-evident truths” as inviolate principles. Now we have people like you energetically arguing that those principles are not only NOT true, but based in kooky BS that has no relevance to your current enlightened condition . . . All in a thread where you present yourself as debating the framers intent. If it wasn’t so absurd it would be hilarious.
I recognize they can be synonymous in a general sense but I sometimes use “nation” as a moniker for and in the context of the “national authority / national government” and how the interests and desires of the “nation” may not be the same and may even work against the interests and concerns of the “people”.
I can see how that might lead to some confusion, noting how it is used in Federalist 29, (which I excerpt above) equating “the nation” with the militia; "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable . . . "
I’ll try to avoid conflating these terms in the future and just use, “national government” where I mean national government. Thank you.
So you disagree with Abatis position (and cites) that demonstrate the weakness of the armed “unorganized militia” argument? Very well.
But you have yet to illustrate what makes guns an intrinsic ‘unalienable right’. The DoI doesn’t talk about it. Simply asserting “context” is not sufficient.
SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2007
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
Held:
*
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.*
Exactly, what’s the use? It is very clear here that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” bolding mine.
I’ve heard of Army of One, but not Nation of One. Gotta say, clever way of justifying a pre-emptive ‘war’ on your neighbor for crossing your property line.
It’s not a “argument”, it is Federal Law.
The right to defend yourself is a intrinsic ‘unalienable right’.
DoI? digital object identifier?
If you mean the Declaration, then "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
Note that word “Life”- the right to defend yourself.
You appear to be explicitly stating that the RCBA is an unalienable right, separate and apart from any connection to the idea of a citizen militia. Is that an incorrect interpretation of your position? If so, please clarify.
It says you have a right to “Life”. Implied is the right to defend your life. Where does the DoI mention the specific means by which you must defend it, i.e. gun?
To reiterate my position, I believe the militia clause is meaningless and the second amendment should be read as granting an individual right.
If I’m understanding your posts, you believe the militia clause has meaning and affects the right.
But then I posed a set of question which would have one answer if the militia clause has meaning and a different answer if it does not. And all your answers are in line with the no meaning interpretation.
I think part of the confusion is that you’re treating the militia clause as either/or. The militia clause can be meaningful without necessarily constraining or contradicting the individual right to bear arms. This distinction is discussed in Heller. I wrote about how I think this would lay out in an older post here:
This is consistent with Heller and all past SCOTUS rulings. Giving meaning to the militia clause is but one avenue to fall under the protection of the 2nd amendment. But it need not be the only one.