Assertion: militia's right | /r/HasProperty | vindicated
Facets:
value: namely
type: OTHER
Source sentences:
text: The dissenting Justices must accept one premise that is a basic assumption of the Heller Court majority, namely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can, at least in theory, under the dissenting Justices' thesis, be vindicated.
text: Justice Stevens attempts to conflate the concept of individual rights and collective rights, ostensibly to support the notion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms that he proclaims to be tied solely to one's connection with a militia, can be vindicated.
text: Justice Stevens asserts it anyway, as a given, as a naked assumption, and then proceeds on his merry way with his argument that the right to be vindicated does exist; and that the right can exist within the notion of connection with one's service in a militia–a collective right, after all, a collective right that does not and cannot exist legally, and, more importantly, a right that does not and cannot exist logically.
text: ’s connection with a State’s militia qua National Guard, as merely an adjunct of the Federal Government’s standing army, then wherein is one to envision anything left of the Second Amendment as a right to be vindicated?