Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong. Just ask the Supreme Court. The PEOPLE are the militia. It is an Individual Right. You don't need to be a part of the Federal National Guard to own, and CARRY a gun with NO restrictions, nor INFRINGEMENTAS.
In what decision regarding definition of militia was that stated?
So you refuse to acknowledge the authority of 9 politically appointed people in black robes to proscribe the outer limits of your rights in modern society because you believe your rights are proscribed by 39 people in white powder wigs who died 200+ years ago? Makes sense.
They have no authority to alter my rights, as determined existed before they were allowed to exist.
The text of the 2nd amendment says different than 9 opinions do. It wasn't an unopposed majority. It was an opinion, not a fact.
They have no authority to alter my rights, as determined existed before they were allowed to exist.
The text of the 2nd amendment says different than 9 opinions do. It wasn't a majority, it was an opinion, not a fact.
The same text that gives you the second lays the groundwork for changing those amendments, and potentially altering previous versions. "They" can do what "they" wish, if they have the votes and support.
They have no authority to alter my rights, as determined existed before they were allowed to exist.
The text of the 2nd amendment says different than 9 opinions do. It wasn't an unopposed majority. It was an opinion, not a fact.
So you’re just accepting the view promulgated by 39 people from the 1700s as opposed to 9 people from 2018 because it fits your narrative better? Sounds like outcome-based cherrypicking, and a bunch of subjective BS, to me.
Yup. The “natural right” idea is just another way of saying “the right to do whatever the f I want.” I have just as much of a “natural right” to stab a child in the neck with an ice pick as you have to carry a gun.
Natural common law, has centuries precedence.
[1] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-1769), vol. 1, 67. [2] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961; orig. 1787-1788), no. 78, 526. [3] See H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), ch. 7. [4] In Steve Sheppard, ed., Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003).The traditional citation of the famous passage is 8 Co. Rep. 118a. [5] Sir Matthew Hale, The History of the Common Law of England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971; orig. written before 1676), 40. [6]See Bradley Watson's article on Oliver Wendell Holmes.
One other major point on the ramifications of this:
It literally does not matter what you BELIEVE your rights are, the only thing that matters is what the power structure that will exert force to defend or enforce the rights believe your rights are. Again, philosophy can be used to attempt to change the alignment and direction of this concentrated power through reason and discourse, but if you are an outlier in your beliefs of what your rights are - they will not stop the power structure in control from enforcing their version upon you.
Luckily here in America MOST of the big "beliefs" about human rights MOST people have are aligned with the "beliefs" of the power structure, which makes sense because it is controlled by a form of consensus. In places through history (and now) where a majority of people in an area are NOT aligned with the power concentration in that area - that is when you get genocide and/or revolt - which are respectively an attempt by the existing structure to quash the gathering of power outside of its control, and a bottom up attempt to gather power to change the dominant power structure (and again, for the revolt to succeed it needs to be able to bring a greater concentration of power to bear).
I gotta spread the love, before I can rep you again.
In what decision regarding definition of militia was that stated?
It was decided in 1789.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Part of the ratification process.
It's a moot point. The US Supreme Ct. has ruled that it means Americans have the right to own and bear arms.
In what decision regarding definition of militia was that stated?
McDonald v. Chicago.
The one that repealed all gun legislation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
