an individual right

I mentioned something in the previous post, and it deserves being expanded upon.

While the nine Supreme Court Justices in D.C. v. Heller disagreed on how the right protected by the Second Amendment could be limited, all nine of them agreed that the right was one held by individuals, not “the militia”.  This is held out by their opinions and dissents.

To begin with, the Opinion of the Court was signed by Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, indicating that they agreed with the following statements:

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

…

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Moving on, Justice Stevens wrote a dissent to which Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer added their signatures:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

Finally, Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg also signed Justice Breyer’s additional dissent:

In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

Put simply, not even the Supreme Court Justices who agreed with “gun control” extremists about D.C.’s draconian gun laws were willing to sign on to the wholly spurious, historically-unsupported, recently-fabricated notion that the Second Amendment exclusively protects a right in relation to a “militia”.

The more you learn about how poorly supported the “gun control” position is, the more you start to understand why the people in the anti-rights movement are almost invariably so bitter, antagonistic, and hateful.  It has to wear on a person to be proven wrong at every turn.

One wonders why they simply do not accept reality and move on with their lives, happier and healthier for it.

wait. that’s illegal.

I would contend that there is no better, contemporary example of the insane incrementalism of “gun control” extremists than what is currently transpiring in Virginia.

Due to apparently-unfortunate election results, the authoritarians placed into the Virginia Legislature are working on prohibiting “assault weapons“, punishing people for having their firearms stolen, stripping people of their rights without benefit of due process or trial, and assorted other pipe dreams of  “gun control” wanna-be tyrants.

Peaceful Virginians’ response has been fairly predictable and quite understandable, and has included such things as banding together to form militias to defend their Constitutionally-protected, human rights.

Now, ever since “gun control” extremists have been attempting to unjustly deprive peaceful Americans of their rights, they have bitterly clung to the wholly erroneous notion that the rights protected by the Second Amendment only apply to militias.  Impressively, though the nine Supreme Court Justices seated at the time disagreed on how that right could be restricted and limited, all of them agreed that the right was reserved by the people, and the prefatory clause at the beginning of the Amendment was an explanation as to why, at the most.

But those who wish to control other men have never let simple facts get in their way, and – to this day – “gun control” extremists pound the “militia” drum.

So the Virginians getting together to form militias to defend their under-attack human rights are perfectly acceptable with the “gun control” crowd, right?

Wrong.

The Virginia Legislature’s response to this news was to propose legislation banning such activities.

As I like to not-really-joke, the slippery slope is not a fallacy when you can point to the incline and the Crisco.

“Gun control” extremists like to incessantly whine and moan that pro-rights activists are unwilling to “compromise”, or have “reasonable discussions”, or “work together”.

This is why.  

Even when peaceful Americans try to play by the absurd rules of ignorant fools, the latter change the rules, and then demand more, MORE, MORE.

I dare say – and I certainly hope – that America is tiring of foot-stomping temper-tantrums from “gun control” extremists who want to control others, but cannot even control themselves.