View Single Post
Old 09-06-2019, 12:13 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,077
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Maybe I am not following you.

Your link talks about the Declaration of Independence. You can certainly use that as a way of understanding the Constitution, in fact, you probably should. But the DoI says that there are inalienable rights, that governments exist to secure those rights. So when they set up the Constitution, they were doing what the DoI said they should be doing - setting up a government to secure natural/inalienable rights for the citizens of the USA.

In the 2A, they said "we have to have a militia, therefore we need to be clear that the government has to secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

If you want to understand the Constitution in the context of the Declaration of Independence, that's the context, and that's what they did.

So you disagree with Abatis position (and cites) that demonstrate the weakness of the armed "unorganized militia" argument? Very well.

But you have yet to illustrate what makes guns an intrinsic 'unalienable right'. The DoI doesn't talk about it. Simply asserting "context" is not sufficient.
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.