[one.more.ace]

Should you allow a discussion of violating a provision of statutory/written law, including the Constitution, then you are wandering off the key issue: you are discussing secondary rather than first principles. In other words, discussing effects without the context of first principles.

In such a discussion, you may reasonable expect that black becomes white, and up becomes down; and anything goes.

Whereas, references to the phrase “the right” in the Constitution, is a reference to something already established based on first principles (which pre-date the Constitution), not actually defined by the Constitution, and that is why the Constitution merely “enumerates” [those previously established] rights. Reiterating this: Nowhere does the Constitution define and establish rights; it merely refers to those previously established rights.

Hence, “rights” do not come from the government. (Remember, the Constitution defines and establishes – causes – said government – the effect, not the other way around.)

Attempts to convert this “recognition” to “definition,” or to reverse cause with effect, is merely an attempt to separate secondary effects from first principles.

Once that is accomplished, black is white.

Note that in this discussion: http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/piers-morgan-reduced-to-name-calling-in-gun-control-debate/

…Larry Pratt will not be deflected off of first principles. (And this is what frustrates Morgan.)