Reply #48: I used “has” four times. To which of those times are you referring? [View All]

[jody]

SCOTUS also says government has the authority to draft citizens into the military and force he/she to fight and die for government and in an extreme case to execute she/he if they refuse.

NOTE: SCOTUS took PA’s “right” to defend the state and made it an “obligation”. Unfortunately SCOTUS has not taken PA’s “right” to defend self and made it an “obligation”.

I infer from your post that (a) you believe government has the authority to force me bear arms to defend government and if necessary die for government, an artificial creation, but (b) you believe government is not obligated to protect me and has the authority to prevent me from keeping and bearing arms to protect myself.

SCOTUS has said government has the authority to compel citizens to defend the government thereby transforming a "right" to defend the state under Pennsylvania's constitution into an "obligation" to defend the state and approved the state's use of power to enforce that obligation.

SCOTUS has also said government is not obligated to defend an individual, so who is obligated to do that task?

The only one capable of defending an individual at all times is that individual and IMO that person is entitled to keep and bear effective, efficient tools to defend self.

Like other rights, one can choose to defend or not defend them self against criminals. I sincerely believe most people would make some attempt to defend them self against such things as murder but their attempted defense would be meaningless without some type of arms. Today, the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense is a handgun.

My opinion is firmly grounded in the words Pennsylvania used in its constitution of 1776. PA said those rights were inalienable, meaning government can never have the authority to deny citizens those rights. Vermont used almost identical words in its constitution of 1777.