Countering the Heller dissent

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. How can anyone take seriously an opinion inferring a limiting definition of a right...

...from the language of a law protecting said right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Might I infer from this language that while Congress is restricted from making such a law that it would be acceptable for a municipality or even an entire state to declare itself solely for or against any particular religion? Should we support the idea that interstate phone calls have no fourth amendment protection? The Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) leaves the regulating of 'interstate commerce' to the Congress.

The pro-control faction of the people look at Heller as a failure, a mistake. We often look to our history in law and judgment in an effort to characterize that which we need defined. While instructive, this course may skip the necessary assessment of self and conscience to determine the basis for framing the controversy. In the decision in the case of Baby M, Chief Justice Robert Wilentz recognized not laws and court decisions regarding contracts and agreements but the human nature of the parent-child relationship and that a contract to sell parental rights cannot be conceptually separated from selling the resultant child and that selling people is fundamentally evil. Justice Stevens looks to the militia clause to find circumstances which may qualify an actor for the possession of firearms and to justify laws restricting who may exercise that right and when it might be exercised. He does this rather than examining his own conscience because, as has been noted many places, some of those within government suggest firearms not be a general and overall right of the people out of suspicion or mistrust of the people. Doesn't that same opinion lead to the undercutting of how the government might view the people? IMHO considering people with that mindset leads to actions, laws and judgments treating the people more as subjects and less like equals. Considering 'We the People' with suspicion rather than trust is against the very idea of liberty.

The entire concept of the militia contrasted with a regular army makes fundamental to each person his innate right to be equal in arms (and in every other means) with that of an average soldier. The mindset to regard an average person AS an average soldier in prevents the formation of a special class of individuals.

JFK wrote: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy..." That the economy itself is owned by and owed to the people and not granted by the government.

We are a society based more on laws for utility than laws simply for the majority.

It is the most basic duty of any government to protect the rights of all the people. It is the duty of every official to most closely and diligently act to protect the rights of those least among us and those furthest from the 1%.