Ya couldn't find a Barbie doll video to illustrate your point?:mrgreen:
How in the world is it harder exactly?
To get a liscenses one must show a proof if legal presense, identity, state residence, pass a safety course, and spend 9 months (if prior to 19) or 30 days (if older than 19) on a learning permit. The states themselves provide courses on safety, preperation, and that help fulfill requirements in public education in classes that count for school credit.
What is more difficult about obtaining a gun than that?
Not to mention only one of the two is actually a constitutional right.
Ya couldn't find a Barbie doll video to illustrate your point?:mrgreen:
I will use visuals to simplify things for this crowd.
Glad to see you can admit when you are wrong.And, look, I'm working on it, I've been spending the last couple hours reading and it's bearing out my argument. But I'll admit I've been doing some sloppy arguing of my own.
And, when you read Heller, you'll see that the court took this into consideration, at length.The 2nd Amendment does not create a "collective" right, nor was this its original intention. I was mistaken about this. However, the thrust of what I've been saying is substantially correct. The "collective" right theory is in fact bunk, but the idea that the individual right is tied inextricably in to the militia clause is not.
The collective right to self-defense is necessarily based upon and linked to the individual right to self-defense, as a collection of individuals cannot have a right that each of the individuals of that collective do not individuallty have, seperate from that collective.Simply put, the original intent of the second amendment was to create a right of the people (individually) to keep and bear arms in defense of liberty against tyranny, a right that existed as against Congress. It was not intended to create an individual right to self-defense, hunting or other sport, etc
Not in any way.This is the recent invention of activist judges
Naturally.Glad to see you can admit when you are wrong.
I don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent. What you're engaging in in the above reasoning, just as Scalia did in Heller (which I have read) is the same sort of "activism" that Scalia so often decries (when it leads to conclusions that he doesn't support politically, that is). I don't have any other problem with your reasoning than the fact that it is ahistorical. The right to bear arms in self defense just isn't there.And, when you read Heller, you'll see that the court took this into consideration, at length.
The collective right to self-defense is necessarily based upon and linked to the individual right to self-defense, as a collection of individuals cannot have a right that each of the individuals of that collective do not individuallty have, seperate from that collective.
Uh, you got some sort of argument for that?Not in any way.
Naturally.
I don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent. What you're engaging in in the above reasoning, just as Scalia did in Heller (which I have read) is the same sort of "activism" that Scalia so often decries (when it leads to conclusions that he doesn't support politically, that is). I don't have any other problem with your reasoning than the fact that it is ahistorical. The right to bear arms in self defense just isn't there.
Uh, you got some sort of argument for that?
The right to bear arms in self defense is not there in actual words but the right to self defense is a well established legal doctrine in every state. We don't need a gun for self defense but it helps.
Do you have anything to back this up? Self-defense as a "right" is different from self defense as an affirmative defense to a crime. Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.
Ok then...I don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent.
-Show- that the intention was to protect the right to arms for the defense of the collective to the full exclusion of the right to arms for the defense of the individual -- that is, that the full intent was to protect the right of the people to bear arms collectively for the defense of their state, counties and towns, but not at all for the individual defense of their farms, their houses, their families or themselves.Simply put, the original intent of the second amendment was to create a right of the people (individually) to keep and bear arms in defense of liberty against tyranny, a right that existed as against Congress. It was not intended to create an individual right to self-defense, hunting or other sport, etc
Ay carumba, please no more semantics.
Nor was the 1st or 4th or 5th or 6th or...Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.
Ok then...
You said:
-Show- that the intention was to protect the right to arms for the defense of the collective to the full exclusion of the right to arms for the defense of the individual -- that is, that the full intent was to protect the right of the people to bear arms collectively for the defense of their state, counties and towns, but not at all for the individual defense of their farms, their houses, their families or themselves.
You have already agreed that my argument that necessarily links a collective right to an individual right is logically sound and that you do not have an issue with said reasonong; to prove the above you will, necessarily, have to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a presmise that, essentailly, does not make sense.
Nor was the 1st or 4th or 5th or 6th or...
The 14th changed all that, and the decision here incorporates the 2nd against the states just as prior decisions incorporated the other amendments.
The point is that since the constitution was actually changed by the 14th amendment, the origiinal intent for the BoR to apply only to the actions of federal government is meaningless, just as it is when considering any other part of the constitution that was changed thru the amendment process.You're right the 14th did change all that, but are we talking about the "original intent" or not?
No one holds the position that original intent superceeds subsequent amendments.
I did - I was, however, responding to -your- responses.Goobie, I'm working on it, research takes time. I thought you already agreed to cease the gotcha-debate stuff and give me 24 hours.
The 2nd was incoroprated against the states thru the 14th.But if the individual right to self defense was never there in the first place, how can it incorporate against the states?
I did - I was, however, responding to -your- responses.
The 2nd was incoroprated against the states thru the 14th.
-You- are presently working to show that the 2nd was never intended to protect the right to arms in the act of individual self-defense.
Well then, I suggest you then refrain from making additional claims in your responses - or, for that matter, responding at all - until you have those cites.Right, with a demand that I cite my sources. I had already said that I was working on it. And I'm going to continue this research and support my argument whether you like it or not. But I thought I had a gentleman's agreement from you that I could take the time to do my research before providing citations. Do I not? Rest assured that citations will be provided in due course.
There was no concession; you have to show that your premise is sound before your statement has any effect.Thanks for repeating what I already said. I accept your concession.
Well then, I suggest you then refrain from making additional claims in your responses - or, for that matter, responding at all - until you have those cites.
In proving that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a premise that makes no logical sense, you have a LOT to do. Get busy.
Combative? Rude? Because I dont simply take what you say as fact and expect you to back up your claims?Nonsense. You have provided no citations for your own assertions so far, and frankly your behavior has been unnecessarily rude and combative, to the point where I must doubt your objectivity in the matter. My argument at length will appear shortly, with citations, but you can consider our discussion at an end. Good day.
Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?