M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
". . . created out of whole cloth the right to self-defense and the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense."
More hogwash. The prattle of a historically illiterate child . . . or the conscious lie of a subversive, traitorous snake.
"[H]e made a compelling and successful argument using primary documents and sources from the Foundation Era as the Framers were in essence silent on the issue. . . .
Like Satan's ploys, always a grain of truth in the lie.
". . . where Scalia contrived the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment right at the time of its ratification."
Followed by another lie.
The people most certainly did understand the Second Amendment to assert the individual right of self-defense via the use of military-grade arms at the infantry level, as the common defense provided by the militia, comprised of the people of the several states, inherently, necessarily and quite obviously entails the individual ownership of such arms and the right to use them in self-defense at the most basic level of threat: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridge" by the federal government, and since Chicago, which followed on the heels of Heller and, likewise, merely affirmed that which had always been inherently, necessarily and quite obviously true, the right may not be abridge by any of the several states either. The right of self-preservation in natural law, indeed, the codified and judicially affirmed use of such arms in self-defense in the face of criminal initial force against one's life, liberty or property has never been in dispute in this Republic until recently. And even before that, for centuries, it was never in dispute in colonial common law. All the Court did in Heller was emphatically assert in case law what had always been true, both historically and legally, in the face of an entirely new doctrine asserted out of whole cloth by lying-ass dogs.
In all these many years, you mean that we've been doing it all wrong? LOL!
"Uh, Your Honor, the pertinent question, from the time of colonial common law and beyond, in cases where a person is killed by arms in a desperate struggle outside the parameters of the common defense has always been whether or not the survivor used deadly force in self-defense. Your Honor, my client is innocent of any wrong doing as the deceased did not parish due to any carelessness or to any criminally premeditated action on the part of my client. Here's the proof. . . ."
Not guilty!
Hmm. Quite obviously, the people and its judicial system have never relied on Heller or Chicago to assert that the right to keep and bear arms or use them in self-defense is an inalienable right and pertains to every law-abiding citizen.
It's a given, an inherent fact of natural law affirmed by the Second Amendment in the Constitution.
Shut up.
And now for the most bald-faced lie of them all. . . .
". . . from the text of the Amendment alone there is no evidence as to a right to self-defense or an individual right to possess a firearm."
You lunatic.
A well regulated Militia, [comma] being necessary to the security of a free State, [comma] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The fact of the matter is that each and everyone of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights have always been understood to be natural, inalienable rights possessed by every individual as endowed by the Creator, not by the state, prior to the establishment of any social contract, i.e., the state of nature. Therefore, they are not subject to abridgement under the terms of any legitimate social contract, i.e., the state of the common rule of civil law.
And the ultimate reason for the affirmation in the Second Amendment with regard to the common defense of the people goes to the inalienable right of the people to take up arms and put down a criminally renegade faction among the people or a usurpative government coalition that should rise up against the terms of the social contract.
See link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-is-not-a-living-organism-11.html#post8780291
As to the nonsense that the Framers, let alone the Founders in general, were silent on the issue prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the ratification that would have never occurred without the Bill of Rights:
Hamilton addressed the matter in the Federalist Papers as well, and that would be before the time of the Constitution's ratification. Hmm.
Several of the Founders and the general population addressed the matter before the ratification of the Constitution, indeed, before the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. There was no way in hell that the people were going to put up with any social contact that did not recognize the imperatives of natural law in this regard.
The individual right to keep and bear arms has always been a given in colonial North America. Your gibberish about "the doctrine of how Americans perceived the Second Amendment" is sheer obfuscation. Doctrine? Try an immutable and irreversible fact of colonial life! Scalia didn't have to appeal to any such doctrine to make it stick. Risible tripe. That facet of the decision isn't even part of the formal reason for the decision, i.e., the ratio decidendi, but the mere dictum of corroboration.
LOL! If you had a gun you'd be a danger to yourself. You don't want to keep and bear arms? You don't think you're legitimately entitled to do so in spite of all your talk of acquiescence in the face of settled law whether you like it or not. The matter was settled the day the May Flower landed, you dope.
You're much safer without one, and so are the rest of us given the fact that your wont is to acquiesce no matter what the Court decides whether it be legitimate or not, especially should it decide to divest those whom you hate, Christians, for example, of their inalienable rights of free association. Right?
Last edited:
