View Single Post
  #93  
Old 09-01-2019, 09:51 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
The Constitution is another subject though; it does establish limiting powers on the states. The Constitution's "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" denotes an implied power to enforce that promise. An example -- interestingly on the point of the RKBA -- is explained in Presser v Illinois:
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
So considering that along with the phrase about "well regulated militia", shouldn't the Federal government, as well as the states, have the right to regulate that militia -- including, for instance, the right to require that all members of it take training in how to properly handle their weapons, and be removed from the militia if they can't pass that training? and the right to keep track of who is in the militia and what weapons they possess? so that if the state and/or federal government needs to call upon that reserved military force those governments know who and how many that force is comprised of, what equipment is available, and that the members of the force are trained in using that equipment?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
To say that government has an obligation to "protect" something that the people never parted with, that they never gave government any power over, nor placed any aspect of those interests in the care or control of government, represents a true incongruity. How can government assume to protect what it has no power or authority to even contemplate?
[ . . . ]
As opposed to being "protected" by government, our rights are "secured" by government inaction.
But they are not "secured" by government inaction; because it's not only the government that endangers them.

All "inalienable" rights are also endangered, and in practice throughout human history frequently taken away, by non-governmental actors: individuals and, more recently, businesses including corporations. If we're in practice going to have such rights -- or any rights -- at all, what will keep them available to us, if not government action?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
The "rule of law" means that the enactment and enforcement of the law has rules.
And those rules are themselves part of the laws.

Last edited by thorny locust; 09-01-2019 at 09:53 AM. Reason: clearer word choice