[MarkL]

O’Scannlain declared that the Second Amendment is not one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” precisely because the right is one of “those general civil rights independent of the Republic’s existence,” and not a peculiar possession of Americans as Americans. Peculiarly, it is too important to be imposed on the states via the 14th Amendment by the "privileges or immunities" clause.

Only a lawyer could come up with this sort of crap... How can someone say that this is a "general civil right" while nearly every government on the face of the earth (and certainly, every oppressive one) has strictly limited the possession of arms. Can somebody explain this to me? It seem to be saying that the right to bear arms is a "natural right" belonging to all people, independent of the founding of America, and therefore, isn't protected by the Constitution... So this sort of thought seems to directly go AGAINST the 9th & 10th Amendments, as the right to self defense by the use of arms is seen as a universal right, just not one of the protections enumerated by the Constitution.

ARRGGHHHH!!!! It's like the "Chewbacca Defense!" My head hurts!

Mark

[stevie_d_64]

Bingo!!!

It IS a unalienable right...

Those rights are enumerated (in our case) only so that they are to be seen as a right of a higher authority, that should not be usurped by man or any government instituted amoung men...

Something that is totally lost outside the borders of this country, but that boundary is rapidly becoming porous and fraught with diseases within...