View Single Post
Old 09-09-2019, 08:25 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,948
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
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.
I'm not sure why this makes a difference, legally speaking (though IANAL). If the 2nd Amendment were repealed, then there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from passing laws that ban guns. Whether or not there is some magical non-corporeal "right" to bear arms that exists outside of law, if laws are passed, and remain on the books, that ban guns, then any such right is moot.