Reply #79: I knew you would go there.

[TPaine7]

I think if you honestly reflect on the 14th Amendment everything will become clear.

You mean if I'm rejected by the National Guard because of my race, I can't sue?
Posted by jgraz


Are you sure about that?

I wonder if you're making the most common mistake on this forum: confusing a "right" with an "absolute right". They aren't the same things, especially where the Second Amendment is concerned. No one has an absolute right to join a militia. If you can't meet the criteria, you can't join.

If there's ever been a court case challenging the right to join a well-regulated militia (as defined by the state), then I've yet to hear of it.

Remember the context. It's very clear. We were talking about bringing suit under the Second Amendment. You could most definitely bring suit under the 14th Amendment's equal protection of the laws language.

Now if equal protection of the laws protected privileges and immunities, there would be no need for the privileges and immunities language. The Amendment is saying two different things-- 1)treat every citizen of your state and every visitor from other states equally in your legal scheme and 2) respect the civil rights of all people--especially the individual, personal rights enumerated in the first eight amendments to the Constitution.

I wonder if you're making the most common mistake on this forum: confusing a "right" with an "absolute right". They aren't the same things, especially where the Second Amendment is concerned. No one has an absolute right to join a militia. If you can't meet the criteria, you can't join.

No, as I have shown you made the mistake of ignoring context. And you appear to have compounded it by conflating equal protection of the laws (no racial bias) with privileges and immunities (personal civil rights).

You are of course correct about absolute rights--but that is neither here nor there. If there was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment to join a militia, someone could sue under that Amendment.

The rest of your statement is very revealing. While it is true that there is a difference between a right and an absolute right (one being that the latter scarcely exists if it does at all), there is nothing special about the Second Amendment in that regard.

This "specialness" is a principle of anti-Second Amendment thought that is rarely expressed so explicitly. There are no special rules that can be applied to the Second Amendment to allow those who oppose the RKBA to reach their policy preferences, as fondly as some may wish there were. No legitimate ones, anyway.