Replies

"... restoration of their own constitutional right ..."

If it is a constitutional right, then there is no need for it to be restored.

If it needs to be restored, then it was not a right to begin with.

This is not a case of restoring something. This is a case of legally recognizing something. It is a case of the highest court in the land legally recognizing a right of the citizens.

The 2nd Amemdment never went away. I just wasn't recognized nor honored by many people... and still is not recognized nor honored by many people.

I have said before that a right is legitimate only when it is recognized by the courts. If the courts don't recognize a right, then it effectively does not exist.

Legislatures consistenly refuse to recognize basic rights we have as citizens. They consistently enact laws that infringe upon our rights. I would guess that most laws enacted today infringe upon our rights in one or more ways.

It is the job of the courts to put a stop to legislatures' tyrranical efforts to destroy our rights.

Courts are the real upholders of liberty and freedom in America. If courts, judges, don't uphold our rights, then we are at a point where we must uphold them with deadly force against government, or acquiese to having our rights obliterated by government.

Sadly, the later is what I believe has been happening for a long time, and will ultimately result in government rejecting all of our rights. They will still exist technically. They just won't be recognized by government.

The Declaration of Independence says governments exist to protect our rights. The preamble of the Constitution says the same thing.

In spite of those clear declarations, governments in America are busy rejecting our rights at every turn.

That is not surprising. Every government down through history has attempted to, and in many cases been totally successful at, rejecting citizen's rights. Governments in America are doing the very same thing.

I don't recall a single case in history where citizens have successfully defeated government's efforts, either through legal process or armed revolution. Governments have always won in the end.

I believe America will go the same way... and is going the same way.

If it is a constitutional right, then there is no need for it to be restored.

An inherent right is unalienable whether or not it is recognized as such by government. But the practice of a right can be forbidden by government, and as we all know the right to keep and bear arms often is. Therefore I think it would be correct to say that our ability to practice the right to keep and bear arms needs to be restored rather than to say the right itself needs to be restored.

I have said before that a right is legitimate only when it is recognized by the courts. If the courts don't recognize a right, then it effectively does not exist.

A right doesn't exist in effect when denied to the people by government, but it can't be made non-existent by government. People have inherent, unalienable rights, government only has certain enumerated powers granted to it by the people it governs, but not inherent rights.