Abatis
Platinum Member
Your problem here is not so much that you don't understand the problem but that you think no one other than you does.
"The problem" is the same for both sides of the gun rights vs. gun control debate . . . The loudest voices are the dumber ones and they shout legally immature / undeveloped positions.
On the gun control side there are those who can only argue from emotion and their arguments rarely rise above declaring gun owners are puppy-stomping monsters willing to step over the dead bodies of kindergartners just to rub their penis extensions . . .
Unfortunately, that's the level of sophistication of miketx and your arguments on the gun rights side.
You're far too impressed with what you think is your own unique set of knowledge.
Perhaps. I've enjoyed the gun control vs gun rights debate for 30+ years; I started on USENET on talk.politics.guns and migrated to the web as message boards came on.
I bounce around on about 8 -12 boards looking in vain for the detailed legal debates I had back in the 90's, back when anti-gunners could actually form a coherent argument. Of course back then they had the standing case law on their side in the lower federal courts with the various "collective right" theories holding sway and focusing their attention. Even though they were completely wrong, their confidence in and familiarity with the cases was engaging and fun.
Now I find the brains of anti-gunners are broken (and have been broken since 2001 after Emerson came out of the 5th Circuit) and now, after Heller and McDonald, anti-gunner argument is mostly monkeys throwing their scat on the screen.
I just feel that now that we are winning, gun rights people shouldn't be displaying brains broken by winning, presenting lousy, even dangerous arguments to gun rights. We need to keep arguing what made us win, not revert to arguments we consistently lost . . . Like accepting that the RKBA depends on the definition of the 2ndA's words, when SCOTUS has held for going on 150 years, the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution.
You're really not as bright as you think you are and others around you are not as ignorant as you think they are.
I know I know the law better than you and I know I remember seeing the real dangers of arguing the law from ignorance. As I said earlier, gun rights people should endeavor to have their arguments be as solid and factual as possible; not limp and wrong. If I get my chores done early maybe I'll rebut this error of yours.
But thank you for your good intention of coming in to save us all from our own ignorance. I'm sure the intention is good even if the need is in error.
And I rebut with, you don't know yet what you don't know yet and you think that makes you smart.