letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
That statement is an oxymoron. If it's in flux, then it's constantly being altered or changed, since flux literally means constant change, passage or movement.
Whatever my statement is it is not an oxymoron. Has the Constitution not been changed over the years? If it changed even one time then it is in flux. Flux can mean constant change or ever changing. Depending on the context you could say that document is ever changing. At the very least it is open to interpretation. If it were not we wouldn't have much need for the Supreme Court.
I think it's been clearly demonstrated that's not the case. Some parts of it is absolute, some parts aren't. Nevertheless, the phrase "shall not be infringed" is an absolute on every given day and does not meet your "unfettered or unrestricted" contention.
That depends on your definition of clearly...
Yes it was, but then again there are lots of phrases that were part of the original version that was not ratified by the states. The states refused to ratify the above version with a capital "M" Militia and a capital "S" State because capital letters denoted specific proper name meaning.
Correct though not really the point here.
No it didn't. It established the US National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States and codified when the National Guard can be called into federal service.
The Act organized the two types of militia that could be called into federal service and who is eligible (age limits) to enlist or be appointed as an officer.
Of course the right to bear arms doesn't end at 45 (or 65 for former members of the regular military). Why would it? The right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent on being a member of the military or a militia. Never has been, and likely never will be.
It's only been in the past 50 years or so that gun control advocates have tried, in vain, to use the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." as being the requirement to keep and bear arms. But since it's clear from the Federalist Papers and the intent of English Common-Law that the right of self-defense and self-preservation and resistance to oppression is a natural right, there is no question that the framers of the Constitution had no intention whatsoever of making the right to keep and bear arms predicated on militia membership. The courts have ruled resoundingly and unambiguously on this issue, which shouldn't be surprising since it is so clearly self-evident that anyone has the natural right to defend themselves against attack or oppression. It's a right that doesn't expire with age, nor is it a right that manifests itself only once you reach 17 years old.
It is ambiguous nonetheless. It says the "rights of the people shall not be infringed" but that is likely because, as George Mason once described, the militia is "the People in a certain capacity".That capacity is to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the law. In this day and age, if I saw, let's say, a person attempting to break into my neighbor's house and I approached this individual with a hand gun, I know I would likely be arrested. Again, I'm talking about someone else's property, not my own. I imagine I could argue that I was enforcing the law under the guises of being a militia member because I am of the People. I wonder how that would turn out?