Border Security

Yes, that's my opinion. 

To quote from Breyer's dissent in Heller:

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.



The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do....

Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.



To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.(more)

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962735

Irony, anyone?

By the way, this is a thread about Border Security. You're the one who took it down a three-day rabbit hole on gun issues, challenging arguments that no one was offering. But carry on.

Now I will return you to where you belong: BLOCKED.

David wins the prize for spotting the smoke and mirrors clown car from Philly. Of all his endless attempts at provoking an argument by evasive wordsmithing (his modus operandi) this might be one of the dumbest to date.

He says, "Please tell me where you got this 'inalienable right to defend ones self'. Certainly isn't in the Constitution or the DOI. Just making shit up again?"

Now, any logical thinking person couldn't be blamed for assuming that a person making such a statement doesn't believe--in principle-- in an inalienable right to self-defense. Ah, but you would be wrong! Because to MDDad's able defense of the right of self-defense (regardless of whether the Constitution contains such words), he says 

Congratulations MDDad, You've shot down arguments that no one has made. I didn't say you have no right to self-defense, just that the US Constitution does not grant such a right. I also didn't say I was against such a right, as I am not.

Then what the hell was this all about? Here is a grown man (*cough*) whose arguments invariably boil down to the immature teenager's "But those weren't your exact words!"  He has no ability to think with any subtlety, to consider concepts or to understand figures of speech. He simply seizes on some word or phrase that he believes is a gotcha point--like a dog to a bone--and claims victory in his pointless game. 

And in the end he demonstrates that not only does he continue to misunderstand the nature of the Constitution, he's wrong on the first point as well: The Declaration of Independence (DOI) does contain the right of self-defense; the inalienable "right to life"--the most fundamental right a human being has--necessarily extends to the right to defend such a right, or the right would be utterly meaningless.

Isn't she great?  The Republicans needed her.

each year i have a harder time putting the words "border" and "security" together in the same sentence...

Texas will build it, themselves:

www.mrctv.org/videos/gov-greg-abbott-border-wall-texas-will-build-it-ourselves
Texas Governor, Greg Abbott:

From CNS News, "we'll build it ourselves"