King:
As I said - parse the logic of your position very carefully.
Your example is non-functional. The interesting thing is that enrolling James Meredith was supporting and defending the Constitution - "Equal Protection Clause", and all that.
True Natural Rights are not fungible, and are not dependent on the will of a majority. Or on human will at all.
Pretend that a majority in a Legislature passes a law that certain people, say Jews and Gypsies: have no civil rights, no right to life, and are not really people, and they may be shot on sight or sent to , umm.... lets see.. whats a good term... how about Konzentrationslager? After passing such a law, by majority, such people have no rights, right?
You are a journalist. If a majority passes a law requiring licensing of journalists, then thats ok, right?
That is the position you are espousing.
Natural rights transcend majoritarian will. Majorities control policies - not rights.
The Founding Fathers of this country did not suggest the Second Amendment was to settle policy matters - that is anarchy. For you to suggest that that is the position I and others here have presented( the American Classical Constitutionalist position) is silly - and another straw man argument. I would not have expected you to advance that - or perhaps I have been unclear in expressing just WHAT the Second Amendment is for. But , I have used plain English, as have several other folks, so I am led to conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse. The other possibility is that you have such a European idea of rights ( namely that they exist solely as the product of a majoritarian Legislative will - the new "Absolute Monarch" - and can be created and destroyed at the whim of the majority)that we cannot bridge the chasm between us.
I think like an American and you think like a Canadian.
Regards
GKT
