As I have pointed out ad nauseum, there is no hard link between the two. Many individuals have the right to self defense, but do no have the right to self defense with a weapon. Prisoners, felons, illegal aliens, small children, the insane, foreign tourists, etc., ALL have the God-given inalienable right to self defense. Just not with a weapon.
Self defense with a weapon is a right that WE protect -- WE decide who may use a weapon, what weapon may be used, and under what circumstances it may be used. And that includes everything from a pointed stick to a machine gun.
"And the right to keep and bear arms, without a mention of self-defense is also meaningless."
When the Founders were discussing the second amendment, there was no mention of self defense. Justice Stevens saw none. If you have such a reference I'd like to see it.
"If the Supreme Court rules in Heller that there is no fundamental, individual right to self-defense, then we have wasted our time in pushing Heller."
There IS a fundamental, individual right to self defense. Not with a weapon, of course.
But if you're saying that the only victory you will accept is if the U.S. Supreme Court rules the second amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to self defense with any weapon you choose ... well, prepare to be disappointed.
And there is a fundamental, individual right to free speech. But not with an internet, of course.
You ought to sense the barrenness of your argument based on who it is who agrees with you.
Nonsense. There are still elements of the right that may have to be recognized, despite what I expect from Heller.
Why don't you entertain us with what the Founders would have to have written to accomplish what you describe as a possible victory?
We now know from your arguments that, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", includes only people who were the militia and that "arms" includes only arms that the government decides are suitable for a militia".
How about this: "The right of all persons, except infants and prisoners or mental patients under custody, have a right to keep, bear, own, purchase, manufacture, sell, and trade arms of all kinds regardless of lethality or lack of specificity of target".
That's pretty airtight isn't it?
many individuals have the right to free speech, but do not have the right to free speech with a press? ALL have the God-given inalienable right to free speech. Just not with a press (the term broadly including pen, movable type, printer, modem, TV, radio, internet, etc.).Free speech with mechanical assistance is a right that WE protect -- WE decide who may use a "press", what kind may be used, and under what circumstances it may be used. And that include everything from a pencil to satellite TV to blogging.
Since you have posted this ad nauseum, you no doubt have at your fingertips a list of citations and sources to support your contention.
Would you direct this enquiring mind to those citations or sources?
Many thanks.
A weapon is anything at hand. Sometimes it is a fist or a foot.
Other times (and it should be most times) it is a handgun or long gun.