Gun Control & RKBA

jimmy the one said:
SUDDENLY, after I expose his fraud, surf guru claims there are four propositions, not just one, and they are 'complimentary to each other'.

Yes, there are four propositions and while related and "complimentary", they are separate and distinct and can stand alone as their own concepts.

Note that each proposition has different citations. Do you think you should be listening to what that is telling you?

Do you consider Breyer a fraud? Yeah, he wrote the four propositions but then he says that for his dissent, his approach primarily concerns the fourth point. Are you going to call him out for only focusing on one proposition in his dissent?

jimmy the one said:
guru 1: Here we see Breyer and the other 3 dissenting Justices agreeing that ALL THREE Heller opinions issued that June day in 2008, all concur with the individual right interpretation.

Yes, certainly.

Breyer, for support of his statement that the right is individual in his proposition #1 cites, "See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)".

That means Breyer is saying his statement in #1 AND the majority opinion at page 22 AND Stevens' dissent at page 1, ALL stand in alignment on this singular point, each of the three opinions represent the exact same statement in law, that the right recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

THIS IS WHY I SAID THAT HELLER WAS 9-0 ON THE SINGULAR POINT OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!

jimmy the one said:
guru 2: The four dissenting Justices all agree that the individual right interpretation is the only interpretation represented in the Court's precedent.

guru 3: The four dissenting Justices all agree that THE ENTIRE COURT AGREES WITH THOSE STATEMENTS.

Yes, of course! . . . Breyer and the Justices who joined him certainly said that the individual right interpretation was the ONLY interpretation represented in the Court's previous RKBA/2ndA decisions and all three Heller opinions. What does, "based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes . . . The Amendment protects an “individual” right . . . " mean to you?


Now, to address you accusing me of "fraud" for not including propositions #2, #3 and #4 . . . My point was confirmed / proven by Breyer's proposition #1, it was all I needed to make and conclude my argument.

My point didn't need #2 or #3. The right being individual is not related to the perpetuation of the general militia principle or dependent on any examination or interpretation or enforcement of the general militia principle.

Any separate analysis of the object of the 2nd Amendment demanded by #2 or #3 might speak to something like the types of arms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, (militia useful arms) but that would have no effect on the basic, incontrovertible fact that the right to keep and bear arms exists and is possessed by the individual citizen.

Neither was I arguing the individual right to arms (as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment) is an absolute right above any government regulation, so Breyer's #4 was of zero significance to my point.

Please, reread the following as many times as you need for it to sink in . . .

That the right is indisputably individual is not diminished or negated by me not taking special notice of #2, that the fundamental object of the 2nd Amendment is to perpetuate the general militia concept.

That the right is indisputably individual is not diminished or negated by me not taking special notice of #3, that when examined, the 2nd Amendment must be applied and enforced with the intent to preserve the general militia concept.

That the right is indisputably individual is not diminished or negated by me not taking special notice of #4, that it is a fundamental principle that no rights are absolute in an ordered society.

--------------


As far as your histrionic, unhinged rant in the middle of your post goes, if you get that upset over a debate on a stupid anonymous message board, maybe you should take a break.