1) The first is that is that it is not reasonably interpreted as a group right, a right one possesses only as a member of a group such as a militia. This mistaken reading is suggested by the Amendment's unfortunate wording:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is obvious, however, that a reason for X needn't be the only reason for X. So if a reason for the right is militia-related, there could be others, and it is obvious that there is another, namely, the right to the means of the defense of one's life, liberty, and property, and that of one's family.
The right to life is in every case an individual's right to life; it is plainly not a group right. Now if you have a right to life, then you have a right to defend your life and the right to the means of defense which, in this day and age, won't be an 18th century musket.
Ask yourself: Is the right to free speech mentioned in the third clause of the First Amendment a group right? Of course not; it is an individual right. And the same goes for the right against "unreasonable searches and seizures" mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. The right to the means of the defense of one's individual right to life is also -- wait for it -- an individual right.
Even SCOTUS, mirabile dictu, came around to this eminently reasonable view in District of Columbia v. Heller.
2) The second point is adequately made by the following cartoon. It is an indication of how moronic 'liberal' positions are that they are refutable by cartoons.
Recent Comments