Naturally, that is unacceptable to those here at FR who claim that at ratification in 1791, not all of WE THE PEOPLE were protected by the second amendment. Slaves were not, as they could not attain citizenship while enslaved. Nor Indians, as long as they were members of tribes hostile to our Constitution.
To say that the 2nd did not apply to women and children/ foreigners/ the infirm/ the disabled or the elderly is to deny the reality of our history. -- That ALL of the above were, in emergencies, duty bound -- and did defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic, -- is beyond rational dispute.
That only "the militia" [white, male, citizens, 18-45 years of age] were obligated to serve as troops [to execute the "Laws of the Union", etc, by Congress]; - did not absolve everyone else from their duties to defend the nation.
The Courts that claim the only "people" who are protected by the 2nd Amendment are militia members - [white, male, citizens, 18-45 years of age] are simply finding excuses to legitimize infringements by fed/state or local gov't.
Popular votes [majority rule] cannot 'outlaw' individuals who own arms, nor the arms that they own. -- Malum Prohibitum laws violate due process as per the 14th Amendment.
To suggest that the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be repealed is to deny a basic founding concept, - that our rights to life, liberty or property are inalienable.
Quite. Whatever a “citizen” was a couple centuries ago, the Supreme Court has subsequently affirmed that the term is much more broadly encompassing now. Women, minorities, children, elderly - if born here, or were “naturalized”, enjoy the benefits and explicit rights of citizenship. Slavery has been abolished. Indians are included as citizens. Such all constitute “the people” today as a clearly accepted tenet of Constitutional law - an achievement which a great many people fought, suffered, and died to rightfully obtain in the face of wrongful oppression. The 2nd Amendment clearly states “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; whatever connection to discussion of a militia, that enumerated right is not linguistically dependent on the definition of “militia” or use thereof.
That the definition of “militia” is X is relevant only insofar as the Founding Fathers recognized that X would be a subset of “the people”. X is not specified in the Constitution, but only by subsequent subordinate legislation. The preamble to the 2nd Amendment makes clear that whatever a “well-regulated militia” is (leaving Congress to define relevant details later as circumstances dictate), it is best obtained by ensuring “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Yes, that means that my 9-year-old niece does have a right to her rifle (despite being both female and young), my aging father does have a right to his shotgun (though far beyond “militia” years), and I have a right to obtain an M4 (denied me despite being a “militia” member by law).
Insofar as anyone can have an enumerated Constitutional right revoked, it is a long-established standard that while possible, it only happens involving adjudication pursuant to specific circumstances involving a specific person - and then only so long as the circumstances persist. This is extremely far from what some contend, trying to minimize the scope of “the people” to an ill-defined subset of an oppressively restricted elite recognized hundreds of years ago. Better to think that the only restriction on the 2nd Amendment is - the 2nd Amendment (to wit: your enjoyment of the RKBA only goes so far as where my enjoyment of the same right gives me justification to shoot you; rephrased: you can have a gun, but if you point it at me I’ll see you don’t have it for long).
Elsewhere in the Constitution, harsh punishment is prescribed for those who conspire to deny rights to citizens. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a right enjoyed by all citizens; any, even states or cities, who move to infringe that right are subject to punishment unto execution.
The right is clear. That there may be nuances subject to arguable variance in interpretation does not detract to the clear intent and language of the enumeration thereof. Any language, if you argue hard enough, is subject to willful misinterpretation; those who insist on denying rights due to language weakness are enemies of the Constitution, our rights, and our nation - and, if they get pushy about it, will be treated as such.