It seems that contrary to what I said in post +77 of this subsears, the court in McDonald v. City of Chicago was not arguing for gun ownership directly from a self-defense right stand but from that of a right to keep and bear arms that fits the test it mentioned of being "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," for due process incorporation. But the right to keep and bear arms is not like an instinct we know it remains the same. So while the court wanted to apply the above quote on keeping and bearing arms in our time, it supported its argument with keeping and bearing arms with a very different set of advantages because of being from very different environment back then. How much there is a difference between then and now in the dependence of the average person on himself for protection? How about the value of keeping and bearing arms to self defense for its potential collective rule in pushing away and defending the self from internal or external governments or the difference in the capability of the government to defend and repel against even a group of people back then and now?
No comments:
Post a Comment