Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: What America's gun fanatics won't tell you [View all]krispos42
(49,445 posts)58. Title 10, United States Code, Section 311
Militia: composition and classes
(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.
So, only male civilians between the ages of 17 and 45 have a right to own guns. All women, and all men aged 46 and over, have a privilege extended by the government.
Or we can try this line of reasoning:
There are 3 entities referenced in the amendment: the militia, the state, and the people. The last specifically have the right to bear arms.
The state, as a governmental jurisdiction, already has the right to have armed agents (law enforcement) and an armed military force. It's inherent in a governing system. It doesn't need to be stated in an amendment.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Is that your only conclusion to the OP-ED after reading Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29?
ffr
Mar 2018
#2
I'm sorry, but you just made a straw man fallacy. I have offered no proposition at this point
ffr
Mar 2018
#4
"When you reply to a sourced article posted on D.U., you are replying to that sourced article."
Eko
Mar 2018
#46
That's a given. Articles are referenced sometimes at the top for LBN, but usually at the bottom.
ffr
Mar 2018
#55
You don't really think those assholes CARE what the constitution says, do you?
Ferrets are Cool
Mar 2018
#52
You forget that the findings in Miller were rendered moot by Heller. The same standard applies...
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2018
#69