XPost: us.politics, talk.politics.guns   
   From: wats_a-dikfer@2P_with_stupid.com.pz   
      
   On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:32:21 -0400, Demon Buddha  wrote:   
      
   >Sarah Austin wrote:   
   >> Demon Buddha   wrote :   
   >>   
   >>>      OK , so someone explain that one to me.  If the right was   
   >>>      preexistent,   
   >>> then why would the court not want the 2nd incorporated?  Is there a   
   >>> sound legal reason for this or is this more political chicanery,   
   >>> perhaps to open the door for some reversal at a later date?   
   >>   
   >> I'm wondering how they base the pre-existence of the right, before it   
   >> was recognized by the 2nd Amendment.   
   >   
   >	That's fairly easy.  Each of us are, as "living units", equal.   
   >Furthermore we own ourselves, which is to say that nobody else owns us   
   >and therefore nobody holds any legitimate right to handle us against our   
   >wills.  We therefore have equal rights to our lives, each of us in   
   >relation to the others and to the "outside world", if you will.  Given   
   >this, the right to defend ourselves from injury, enslavement, and death   
   >follows naturally.  But being equal in those rights, we as well hold no   
   >right to initiate force against another in violation of their rights.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Fundamental, true ancient and indubitable human right.   
   >   
   >	To proceed on any basis less than this is to open the door to   
   >absolutely any possible perdition to the citizens, the culture, and the   
   >nation.   
      
      
   Except you morons forgot you were all previously pre-owned by King George III   
   of England.  You had basically what rights the King decided/agreed you have.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)