Quote:
|
Will you accept their ruling as the law of the land, or retreat back into denial?
|
I generally accept SCOTUS as the final arbiter of the law of the land. However, since I see my right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right endowed to me by my creator, I would never allow the government to attempt to take that right away from me by forcing me to surrender my firearms.
TJ outlined certain "unalienable rights" in the DOI. Then the word "right" surfaces in the Constitution, so I have to relate the two b/c when TJ used the word "right" in the DOI, and then later Madison used the same exact word in the Constitution, this is evidence enough for me that the framers meant that the "right" to keep and bear arms was an unalienable right.
Did the Volstead Act prevent people from consuming alcoholic beverages? Hardly, and that wasn't even a matter of an "unalienable right" as endowed by the creator, listed in the Constitution.
So, sometimes the government can make mistakes which creates a whole new wave of citizens in violation of the law. The reality is there are millions of guns and gunowners in the US, and to make the same mistake we made with the Volstead Act and the imposition of the 18th Amendment, I believe would only repeat history with even worse consequences.
That said, I think the composition of the current court would probably rule in the affirmation of the individual's guarantee for their right to keep and bear arms, independently of the militia clause, as already has been affirmed in so many lower courts.
We supporters of the 2nd Amendment are hardly in denial. I showed you several cases that applied to the individual's right to keep and bear arms. If I am in denial, then so too, are you Sonart, b/c you merely think you are right and think me wrong. If the situation were this cut and dried, we would have nothing to argue and neither would the court. So let the games begin.