Recent content by ladyliberal

Given my misunderstanding of the quote to which you were referring, much of my subsequent comments of course do not apply. I agree that Heller is the controlling case today, but not that it applies to my argument, which was explicitly about Miller. Regarding Heller, I would be reluctant to...

Certainly, the highest court ruled in Heller that there was an individual right to bear arms. Since this occurred many decades after Miller (which was the topic of discussion) it seems difficult to credit Miller with upholding that protection. Generations of Americans lived and died in the...

Thank you. In light of your other comments, I will not interpret "end of discussion" to mean that you don't want me to reply. Regarding your request to cite evidence, I am reluctant to do so. You have ignored most of the evidence I have already cited and summarily dismissed the rest...

I do not know what you want me to cite, what you want me to see, or what "/discussion" means. If you were to use complete sentences I believe it would assist me greatly.

Certainly, some federal judges have said that Miller protected certain weapons. Others have not. As the dissent in Heller notes (I believe the majority opinion does not contest this point), prior to 2001: A protection that was rejected by the highest courts that heard it for many decades is...

Taking your final point first, I refer you to your own post #21. You ask whether there is evidence that any of the framers said anything to support a notion. I say that there is both evidence and proof that some of the framers did indeed say something that supports that notion (but doesn't...

Since you ask, I do believe you are incorrect in your interpretation of what I am saying. But if you truly don't care what scholars say then you should ignore my post, as my own views have been informed by those of scholars. And limiting yourself to non-scholarly arguments, it is perhaps not...

I disagree completely. I believe you have misunderstood my argument. You will note in the post which you quoted that I used the word "specifically" repeatedly, quoting RetiredGySgt. My point (which might seem too trivial to address, were it not under challenge within the thread) was simply that...

My understanding is that the relevant portion of Miller is That is, the Court held that weapons that weren't in common use in the military weren't protected. It does not follow from that that the Court asserts that weapons that were in common use are protected. At best, it suggests that. Gun...

There is not only evidence, there is proof. Take, as a single example, the following statement made by George Mason regarding the pre-Amendment Constitution: - Was Mason involved in the writing/ratification of the Constitution? Yes. - Do Mason's words support (not prove) the notion that...

Putting aside certain issues of syntax and punctuation in your query, I would say that I understand fairly well whether "assault weapons" are "specifically covered by the 2nd": they aren't. The second amendment was written in the eighteenth century; assault weapons were developed in the...

I do have to question whether Romney (or Reid, or whoever) really believes that Native Americans are predominantly descended from Israelites. I assume this is a reference to a literal interpretation of Mormon dogma. I don't assume that a religious adherent necessarily agrees with his or her...

Thanks. Corrected to "anti-science".

I find anti-science words and acts to be quite distasteful. I believe in science as an institution, and it's really unfortunate when respect for that institution becomes a casualty of partisan politics (the same could be said about other institutions, such as organized religion, the press, etc.)...

Robert Reich's intellect is fairly well documented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich): summa cum laude, editor Yale Law Review, named one of the WSJ "most influential business thinkers", etc. If I follow your argument, you're saying that Ryan's plan couldn't be as Reich portrays it...