As you can see Jet doesn't pay attention to his own arguments. Defamation cases are very hard to prove and courts give great leeway toward
the first amendment in this regard. As such defamation cases have a very high strict reading. The person filing the suit has to prove what is called
"malice".
Defamation Law Made Simple | Nolo.com
here is the criteria that must be met before a defamation suit can be brought. This is the reason that most are thrown out of court.
You cannot file a defamation suit simply because someone insults you or something you did.
the reason the level of this is so high is as not to impede the 1st amendment.
So far jet has been an expert in circular logic. Gun control and weapons ban are allowed because this guy says so.
So his argument here is moot.
In conclusion:
The 2nd amendment is clear
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The founders were clear. They knew the only way to maintain a free society was to have an armed society. Anything other than background
checks or anything that limits people from owning a gun, rifle, spear, knive, sword etc ... does not pass the muster of the constitution.
You can see this in the quotes by the people that wrote the constitution itself. What jet assume is that people 200 years later know more
than the people that wrote it to begin with. This is a flawed way of thinking.
He also ignores the fact that the 2nd amendment is not a limit on people but a limit on government. It says that the government
cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms. He has yet to disprove this. He has yet to deal with this at all.
His whole argument is just repeated over and over again he has not addressed one thing that I have brought up and has not
addressed any of the articles that have been posted. The one link that he did cite was a flawed study.
He then ignores the CDC the same that other gun-ban/gun control advocates say which is that semi-automatic rifles are not a problem.
Hand guns cause more deaths in the US than any other gun. The majority of those are suicides. The other homicides in the US
the majority are drug or gang related.
He has yet to tell us how gun control stop criminals. Yes they will not be able to get a gun through legal means which they never do anyway.
most criminals obtain their guns from friends, steal it, or through an illegal purchase.
The only defense to this for this is to be armed yourself.
Even Sheriff's offices around the country have supported people arming themselves.
There is nothing in the constitution that limits what arms people can have.
The only limiting restriction in the constitution is on the government and that it may not infringe on the right of people to
bear arms.
There is nothing that Jet has argued in this discussion that has over come this argument.
The only thing he can point to is judges not doing their job and defending the constitution which is their role.
they substitute their political bias and opinion over what the constitution says and what the founding fathers said.
As other evidence he points to military and racial laws during the 1800's as support for his argument however, during
the Civil war there were a few black regiments fighting for the North.
During the revolutionary war it would have been critical not to arm your enemies. There were many colonialists that
were loyal to the British. Not only that but the British were recruiting slaves with the promise of freedom if they fought
for Britain. So it only makes sense to not allow your enemies to fight against you.
So in either case the restriction was either racist or military strategy. So his argument falls flat here as well.
His other argument is to try invalidate what the authors of the constitution says simply because it was 200 years ago
and because they had white hair.
So if he wants to stay consistent then what a bunch of people in black robes say doesn't matter either.
What does matter is what the constitution says.
He also ignores that the first congress required every able man to even own or carry a military style rifle.
There is no reason for the draconian gun control laws they are trying to pass.
Disarming lawful citizens from exercising their rights is unconstitutional.
He has yet to defeat this argument in any meaningful way or even argue against it
other than they say so.