Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The meaning of the Second Amendment (One Perspective) [View all]jimmy the one
(2,714 posts)discntnt: In what world......is a right to secure a militia more fundamental than a right to secure one's own survival?
In eastern north america in the late 18th century, in the constitutional sense. The right to personal self defense didn't hinge upon the 2ndA, & a constitutional unfettered RKBA would've been deemed a prelude to civilian mayhem rather than an individual 'right', by almost all the founding fathers & citizens. The right to bear arms in a militia was what protected the fledgling country at it's outset, from both itself & foreign intruders.
I wrote: ".. rkba was derived from the higher law, the need for a well regulated militia."
discntnt: You have this exactly reversed... Looking to justify individual rights from what you imagine to be a "group right" is like believing groups created individuals. It is individuals that created groups.
I really couldn't care less that you think 'I' have it reversed, for you are not challenging 'me' above, but wm rawle & justice scalia. THEY are the ones who said the individual rkba clause was a corollary to the wrm clause, THEY are the ones who contended rkba was derived from a higher law (wrm) by claiming the individual rkba a corollary. SCALIA is the one who contradicted himself by claiming the individual rkba clause was controlling, thus saying a corollary controls the proposition it was derived from. So go take it up with scalia.
(Scalia, in heller 2008): In 1825, Wm Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights.. analyzed {2ndA} as follows:The first is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent
.The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
.. evidently Scalia didn't know the proper definition of 'corollary'. Webster, 1828: Corollary n. 1. A conclusion or consequence drawn from premises, or from what is advanced or demonstrated. If it is demonstrated that a triangle which has equal sides, has also equal angles, it follows as a corollary that a triangle which has three equal sides, has its three angles equal.. A corollary is an inference from a preceding proposition... 2. A surplus.
.. A corollary is a principle derived from a higher rule or law, it is something which logically follows from something coming before it. Rawle clearly contended, & Scalia cited him the very phrases, that the individual rkba clause was a COROLLARY to the militia clause. If you're going to use the word at least know what it means. It would be a ludicrous corollary to contend an individual rkba disconnected from militia service, was derived from the need for a well regulated militia, that doesn't logically follow.
Then scalia goes on to rule the rkba clause was the controlling clause, thus contradicting Rawle by contending a corollary can control the proposition it was derived from!!!