View Single Post
Old 09-07-2019, 10:45 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is online now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,774
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
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.

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.

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.

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" . . . .


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.

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.
This is like the proverbial dissection of the frog in high school bio lab: There is nothing new to be learned, and the frog needlessly dies of it.

The differences between gun rights supporters and gun control supporters are fundamental and irreconcilable as I see them. I'm encouraged, however, by the socio-political trend leading away from the former, towards the latter.

That folks continue to insist that right to life can only be assured at the point of a gun, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, tells me that they simply love guns. Their professed love for unalienable rights extends only for their own life, without the slightest consideration for the society in which they live. The same society and government on which they depend for so many things, which demonstrably ensure their right to life, on a daily basis; Far more so than their guns. It would be far more honest if they just came out and admitted that they are intentionally taking advantage of the social safety offered to them by society without consideration for others, and using anachronistic justifications to do so. I won't hold my breath. Energy is far better spent on continued advocacy in line with those who believe that civil society without guns is a far better way of assuring the right to life for all.
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 09-07-2019 at 10:50 AM.