View Single Post
Old 09-09-2019, 05:36 AM
Abatis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Legally, there is no difference. No court of law is competent to recognize "natural rights," or even to decide whether such things exist (they don't, no more than "natural law" exists apart from the laws of chemistry and physics).
The fact that the right to arms is not granted by government is significant and has been noted by SCOTUS for going on 140 years now. Since the right isn't granted, the Court tells us that it is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Thinking people will understand that to mean that parsing and dissecting the 2nd Amendment and putting its words through a meatgrinder separating them from philosophy and history, just to invent conditions, qualifications and restrictions on the pre-existing right is not legitimate.

They should also understand that claiming the right to arms is dependent upon one's attachment with the Art I, 8, cl's 15 & 16 organized militia is also illegitimate. As the Court says, the right to arms is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence . . . Which means the right can not be argued to be dependent upon something that is itself, ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION FOR ITS EXISTENCE.

I get why you dislike the "not granted" truth and tenet; it destroys your statist authoritarian goals.

Last edited by Abatis; 09-09-2019 at 05:37 AM.