continued from above
Next I have to call into question the source that is used in the quote that he made.
It goes directly against what he cites Scalia ss saying above when citing Washington DC vs heller.
As the same argument could be said of the SCOTUS, However there is more validity to citing, However a source is required as to the validity of the argument
being made by the opposition.
the founding fathers and what they thought than people 200 years later, however let us see what Heller established.
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes
, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. (refutes a popular argument by gun ban advocates.) This had also been establish way before.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. (another popular argument from gun ban advocates)
He then goes back the GA law that only banned black people from owning firearms. The same law existed in many places including northern states. Of course these states also had laws
that banned black people from having dogs as well as they could use it as a weapon. So we can dismiss this as racial prejudice rather than gun control.
Next the opposing fails to address the actual facts citing and instead attempts to ad hominem the source.
what is worse is that he sites 1 author as evidence while ignoring the other information listed.
more so direct quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves. He continues to ad homimen.
The CDC published a study in 2013 on Gun Defense.
Main points were.
1. Crime and gun violence is getting better not worse.
“Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.”
2. Handguns are an issue. 83% of homicides involve a handgun. most of those are either gang or drug related.
3. Mass shootings are not an issue. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.
4. Gun Suicide is worse than Gun Homicide.
5. Guns are used for self defense often and effectively.
Handguns, suicides, mass shootings deaths, and self-defense: Findings from a research report on gun violence.
While there are things that are smart such as background checks no legal citizen should be denied the right to bear whatever arm he wants.
Gun control laws have been found to be unconstitutional as they deny legal citizens the right to carry arms and defend themselves,
hunt, target practice. There is no vested in the interest to the government to limit a legal citizens right to own and bare firearms.
that is what shall not be infringed means.