View Single Post
  #246  
Old 09-06-2019, 11:23 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
But there is no "organized militia". Given sufficient stretch of imagination, one car argue there is an "unorganized militia". There isn't. We know that.
Correct, the framer's constitutional militia is no more . . . and logically, I can see how you can feel that means that the "unorganized militia" is zombie without a soul and is something we should relegate to the status of burning witches and bloodletting. No matter how strongly one feels that to be true, that is a conclusion that does not reside in the realm of constitutional law right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
But let's just say we're feeling generous in our interpretation of the armed citizenry in the modern era.

Generosity has nothing to do with it. The right does not exist because of any benevolence of the citizens or the government. Even if we all agree that the 2nd Amendment's purpose, to perpetuate the general militia principle is moot today, that does not impact the people's right to arms because the citizen has always possessed the right to arms and the right has always existed without reference to or reliance on the Constitution or anything established by the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Well, we exclude some types of firearms. Without getting into state v. federal laws, some parts of the country are more strict than others with respect to gun control laws. So it's not like restrictions on firearms are anomalous.
Much of the disparity in federal and state laws is a vestige of the 2nd Amendment not being enforceable on the states. No provision of the Bill of Rights was enforceable on state laws until the 14th Amendment was ratified (1868) and the 2nd wasn't "incorporated" until 2010 . The legal operation of challenging state and local laws has been in a holding pattern since then and many people have many opinions why. Pretty much all agree that the pace of 2nd Amendment cases accepted by SCOTUS will pick up after Kennedy has left the Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Homer Simpson: Just because I don't agree, doesn't mean I don't understand.
But if Homer was to say that he thinks the government should amend or rescind Newton's Law of Gravity so fewer people would be injured or killed in falls, we would say he doesn't understand that a "law" can recognize a "thing" exists without one needing to believe the "thing" was created, granted, given or established by the law and worse, thinking that changing or removing words in the law would change the "thing" . . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I don't suppose it would influence your point of view if I were to point to democratic societies that happen to enjoy all the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, but without the special protection of rights to guns.
Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
As a Canadian living in Canada, I've never felt that my right to life was in question due to legal and cultural barriers to gun ownership. Living in America, I have to admit that I feel much less safe, in no small part due to the ubiquity of guns, low legal bar for access, and the culture that promotes it
Is your right to life an enforceable right in Canada? IOW, can the government be held responsible for a criminal act against you?

I know in the USA, it is a fundamental principle that no government agent can be held responsible for any citizen's personal security, even if the agent (police) are aware of an imminent threat to you.

So, essentially, there is no enforceable right to life in the USA, there is no right to be or feel safe. In the USA, your right to life is the right to defend your life and be held immune from arrest and criminal prosecution for a "justifiable" homicide.

And your "gun culture" comment puzzles me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Perhaps the right question is...: Are you sure that the unalienable right to life is better served by everyone having access to guns, or, by only very few having access to guns?
Again,the right to life is really the right to defend your life because government takes no responsibility for a criminal attacking you. When one fully understands the UNALIENABLE right to life, one understands that the most brutal violation a government can do (outside of genocide or other extra-judicial execution) is to force citizens to be defenseless. It is an especially egregious violation if the government abdicates its duty to prosecute and remove criminals from society and forces citizens to face them empty-handed.

You call out a "gun culture" that promotes guns, I denounce the government's hug-a-thug culture that is nothing but a system that just processes criminals thorough a revolving door, back out into society.

.