- Banned
- #201
There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!
"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]
It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."
Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)
That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject
The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.
Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.
That's a totally meaningless post.
Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.
You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.
I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?
You're still wrong and you should read the applicable court rulings and the dicta to explain it to you.