You have for the third time dodged my point concerning the part that says:
Louis Weeks

So, you’ve given up obsessively asserting something that was clearly untrue. I’m going to count this as personal growth for you. Well done.

So, let’s get to what you seem to think is some absolute proof.

The right of the people

This, on its own, doesn’t say anything. The right of the people to what?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

Ok, that’s helpful. This seems to express a right to possess arms. If that’s all the amendment says, I guess we could stop here. Oh. Wait. There’s more.

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.

Ah. Now we have the full statement. So apparently, the right to keep and bear arms has the stated purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. Interesting…

Clearly then, a few things are unavoidably true.

First, clearly, the militia must be well regulated. And as we’ve now established, the well regulated militia is answerable to the state government, unless the militia had been called for national duty. Then it is answerable to the federal government.

And we can surmise, from the sentence structure, that the possession of arms that has no bearing on the maintenance of a well regulated militia is not specifically recognized.

Further then, the text specifying ‘keep and bear’ doesn’t reference ownership. Possession with the intent to bear in defense of the country is not ownership.

So, what do we have? It appears, from the text, that the possession of arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia is a protected right.

That’s the National Guard. You join the Guard. They provide you a military-grade weapon to keep and bear, with the specified purpose of mustering, training, and pledging to answer the call if the country needs you. You do not own it. You cannot sell it. But when you make the pledge, the federal government is prohibited from taking it away from you. That’s the right.

What’s not specifically included in this right?

Ownership of the arms. Because ownership of anything isn’t a right. It is a privilege of wealth. There is no asset test to exercising a right. A right cannot be subject to privilege.

Possession of arms that have no bearing on the maintenance of a well regulated militia is also not specifically protected. Regardless of ownership, if you have not pledged to answer the call, your possession of arms isn’t specifically protected.

But it does say ‘the people’. How do we reconcile a right to maintain a well regulated militia, with the people’s right to keep and bear arms?

By recognizing that all of the people have the opportunity to pledge to answer the call. Join the Guard. Pledge to answer the call. If you do, your assigned weapon is protected.

If you choose to not pledge, your possession of arms has no bearing on the maintenance of a well regulated militia. Therefore, not protected.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.