Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 44AMP
I can't and won't argue that you contend what you believe. And I believe I understand your point, but I believe your explanation is slightly flawed.
|
Imprecision is a risk we all take when we write. Taking the sense of Amprecon's point might avoid an argument where in substance there isn't one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 44AMP
Somewhere along the line, many people somehow got the idea that the BOR grants rights. IT does NOT.
|
Indeed, and that sense is reflected in the Declaration of Independence. It isn't a governing document, but it conveys a sense of the origins of the rights men hold.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PJP
Those two were written by men. Wise men, but still just men....
|
I don't believe anyone contends otherwise. Amprecon's observation pertained to the source of the right, not the scrivener.
None of that changes the utility of
explicitly stating a right in the governing document, the COTUS. The COTUS may not
grant a right to free englishmen, but it surely doesn't hurt an effort to preserve those rights to have them articulated for future reference. Given that these rights had been poorly observed by the crown over the prior century, it may have been thought that merely speaking the belief that God invested englishmen with these rights did not suffice.
Think of the many times so many of you have ridiculed arguments like
it only covers arms of the time, so you are welcome to your flintlock, or
times change, we don't need a militia anymore so that part of the document should be ignored, or
despite what it says, it only covers state militias. Each of those were arguments people made because they had a written legally based right metaphorically staring them in the face and needed to address it. You ridiculed those arguments because they were ridiculous.
Can anyone deny the utility of forcing an opponent to make a ridiculous argument?