Reply #310: Oh dear Lord . . . [View All]

[Will E Orwontee]

There are indeed, as I have responded "condtions, qualify (sic) and limits' on the right.

You respond: 'First, you didn't come close to answering the question.'

Hhummm .... that was an answer. You just didn't like it.

Huh? Why the sic? There are no errors in grammar in my original statement (there are profound errors in your sentence construction though).

So what you are saying here is that you have noted that conditions in fact exist and that answers the question? Sorry, you still fail in answering the question.

Judicial rulings are based on the interpretation of those words, which means, there can indeed be restrictions and gosh.... yes..... 'conditions and limits' to use your words on those rights.

But the interpretation must have root in the principles behind the provision. For you to argue that three simple words, "well regulated militia" now establish a scheme of conditions and qualifications upon the right when no such intention to ever limit the right to a select corps of arm bearers was ever posited by any founder is incorrect, illogical and unconstitutional. The reasoning behind these lower federal cases where this collective right theory was created and fleshed out has no foundation in the history or legal traditions of this nation.

I'm only asking you to share the reasoning behind your position.

Now, let's look at that case law of yours: 'Aymette at 158:

"As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. "

WOW- thanks for that!! If the object (big word) is for the "COMMON DEFENSE" and the "PEOPLE IN A BODY", your case certainly does nothing to further the claim the Second Amendment is for an INDIVIDUAL right as some have claimed.

Amazing . . .

Does the statement, "the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured" allow the argument that the right is modified or limited by the reason for its being guaranteed?

Does the statement, "If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority" allow one to argue that the citizens may only keep and bear arms upon enrollment in an official government organization and only to the extent that government allows?

Had you actually read the case you might know that other citizen actions were presented as being protected by the RKBA provision; among them was, "protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution." (emphasis added)

See, a primary reason why the people should be secure in their right to arms is to keep the government honest. If "those in authority" were to say the individual right does not exist, and act to restrict the "arms in their (the citizen's) hands," how then do the people remain, "prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority?"

Wouldn't that act be EXACTLY the type of encroachment the people are supposed to guard against?