"Welcome to the Wild West!"

[Larkinn]

The military is irrelevent in the case of the 2nd amendment. It is controlled by the federal government, including all National Guard units, and therefore cannot be considered criteria for militia as it pertains to the amendment. The basic principle behind the amendment was protection from the government and a physical deterrent from adopting monarchy. Therefore any organization controlled by the government fails the framers litmus test for militia.

Interesting. I'm assuming you are a conservative, yes? Your constituional interpretation is decidedly liberal. Looking into the purpose and intent of the founders as opposed to the words on the page is certainly something Scalia and Thomas would frown upon.

Do you know of such groups? I don't. The National Guard was debunked above. This could be any organization that calls itself a militia. Too broad of a definition.


So basically anyone registered for Selective Service can own a gun. This means that women can't own guns. Also, does this mean that at age 27 you will have to give up your guns? Since these individuals could be tapped for govt. Military service at any time, then this contingent would be corrupted and not favorable to the original purpose.

This could be a right wing militia group that operates out of a cabin in Montana or the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. So ding ding, I am in a militia. I get to keep my guns. LOL

Generally with words you get to pick one definition, not all applicable definitions. The point is that the words militia in the amendment are extremely problematic.

I find the amendment absolutely clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So then I can walk down the street with a rocket launcher?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Interesting. I'm assuming you are a conservative, yes? Your constituional interpretation is decidedly liberal. Looking into the purpose and intent of the founders as opposed to the words on the page is certainly something Scalia and Thomas would frown upon.

I am a moderate. I tend to lean right, but I am receptive to a few ideas from the left. National healthcare for one interests me, but it simply wouldn't work in our society. I also feel that what the framers had in mind is absolutely pertinent to constitutional interpretation. It is a living document. It is not law but a foundation for our laws to be built upon.

So then I can walk down the street with a rocket launcher?

With the constitution being a foundation, you can pass laws that pertain to today's society. So no, you may not wlak down the street with a rocket launcher, because federal law says you may not do so. The constitution is not absolute, but should not be tampered with. When a foundation is moved or cracked, the structure it supports will crumble.

 

[Gunny]

Umm...you just cited a case which infringed on the right to bear arms, which you said couldn't happen. Further they cited the militia requirement, which I said had may come into play and you seemed to dismiss.

Why exactly did you cite this case again?

Try again. I cited a case that upheld the right to bear arms.

 

[Gunny]

I'll add: do note the distinction between the right to bear arms and regulation of that right.

In the case I cited, the Supreme Court DOES uphold the right to bear arms. It does not uphold the individual's right to posess any kind of arm he so desires, and I agree with that decision.

However, the Supreme Court has NOT ruled as of yet on whether or not one side of the argument or the other is correct as far as the Second Amendment itself goes.

That makes this argument opinion vs opinion. You're entitled to yours ... I just don't agree with it.

 

[Larkinn]

I am a moderate. I tend to lean right, but I am receptive to a few ideas from the left. National healthcare for one interests me, but it simply wouldn't work in our society. I also feel that what the framers had in mind is absolutely pertinent to constitutional interpretation. It is a living document. It is not law but a foundation for our laws to be built upon.

I agree...with the last part of what you said. Purpose matters...although when you look at statutes its interesting how crazy purpose gets. What exactly does purpose entail when its a large group of people deciding on specific wording?

With the constitution being a foundation, you can pass laws that pertain to today's society. So no, you may not wlak down the street with a rocket launcher, because federal law says you may not do so. The constitution is not absolute, but should not be tampered with. When a foundation is moved or cracked, the structure it supports will crumble.

This seems contradictory to me. It says you can't infringe on the right to bear arms...which you believe in, but yet you thing that if today's society says we can infringe upon it, we can? That seems quite strange and a bit begging the question. The Constitution is not absolute? I disagree with that quite strongly...it can be interpreted in very different ways which makes it flexible but it is absolute in the sense that you cannot do something directly contrary to it.

 

[Larkinn]

I'll add: do note the distinction between the right to bear arms and regulation of that right.

If by regulation you mean denial, sure. Wait...you mean they can "infringe" upon the right? What a surprise!

In the case I cited, the Supreme Court DOES uphold the right to bear arms. It does not uphold the individual's right to posess any kind of arm he so desires, and I agree with that decision.

Really? Where exactly in the case does the USSC say that one has a right to bear arms?

And really...don't you see the contradiction in those two statements? A right to bear arms means that it can't be regulated, can't be infringed, can't be taken away. How can you say that one has a right to bear arms, but only the arms that the state allows you to bear?

However, the Supreme Court has NOT ruled as of yet on whether or not one side of the argument or the other is correct as far as the Second Amendment itself goes.

That makes this argument opinion vs opinion. You're entitled to yours ... I just don't agree with it.

Except that my opinion is that its unclear (which would seem to be supported by numerous USSC court opinions on the issue, and us still arguing about it) whereas you seem to think you know exactly what it means.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

This seems contradictory to me. It says you can't infringe on the right to bear arms...which you believe in, but yet you thing that if today's society says we can infringe upon it, we can? That seems quite strange and a bit begging the question. The Constitution is not absolute? I disagree with that quite strongly...it can be interpreted in very different ways which makes it flexible but it is absolute in the sense that you cannot do something directly contrary to it.

Regulation is not infringment. If it were then permits to protest would not exist and "free speech zones" would be ruled unconstitutional.

If the US Consitution were absolute, then it could not be amended. Items would not be able to be simply crossed out as it is in my copy. Disagree if you want, but my belief in a nonconnsumate consitution does not at all diminish the amount of respect I have for it. Laws regulating arms do not contradict the constitution, just as a "free speech zone" does not contradict the 1st amendment.

 

[Larkinn]

Regulation is not infringment. If it were then permits to protest would not exist and "free speech zones" would be ruled unconstitutional.

I disagree. When you say that this is a right that cannot be infringed upon I think you are saying that this cannot be regulated. When it is just a right I think it can be regulated, but only somewhat. I personally think that free speech zones are unconstitutional...but AFAIK it hasn't been taken to the courts.

If the US Consitution were absolute, then it could not be amended.

Sure it could...it would then be absolute in a different form. It is absolute in whatever form it currently exists in...that means that you have to use the text as a strong interpretative guide...at least thats what it means for me.

Items would not be able to be simply crossed out as it is in my copy. Disagree if you want, but my belief in a nonconnsumate consitution does not at all diminish the amount of respect I have for it. Laws regulating arms do not contradict the constitution, just as a "free speech zone" does not contradict the 1st amendment.

Well we have a different interpretation about the former (the 2nd amendment), and I think that free speech zones do contradict the 1st amendment.

 

[LOki]

But that is your decision about safety, it does not impact me in an accident. Having weapons everywhere is quite a different orange. And gun regulation is great stuff, just like seat belts, not anti-gun but pro common sense.

Why do some people fear decent, civilized folks with guns? What plans do these "fearful" have for the decent civilized folks, such that armed, decent, civilized folks present such a problem that disarmament must occur first?

Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?

Finally, what is it about <b>you</b> Midcan5, and the people like <b>you</b>, that motivates <b>you</b> to demand that the governmet prevent <b>you</b> (to any degree) from keeping and bearing any weapon <b>you</b> wish?

You part of a militia? No? Then hand over your gun.

Firstly, practically everyone is a member of the militia these days.

Secondly, the Second Amendment does not, in any manner state that the right to bear arms is contingent upon the existence of the militia--it says the the existence of the militia is contingent upon the right to keep and bear arms, and the existence of the militia is essential to the secuity of a free state.

Actually it has three different statements followed by a comma and then says "shall not be infringed". Its unclear exactly what shall not be infringed, and its unclear whether they mean that only citizens in the militia can bear arms or not.

There is no link between the necessity of the militia and the exercise of the right. The right exists on its own, and the federal governemt has (or at least claimed at the authoring of the constitution) no jurisdiction over other applications of "the right" other than those specified under the government's responsibility to national defense. Thus, whereas the federal government could not make constutional notation regarding hunting, or target shooting, or various other excersises of "the right"--it could make notation regarding national defense via the militia, over which it was empowered to assume jurisdiction, and did so to establish the federal interest in recognizing and protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Rights (any rights) are conditional upon the existence of people, not the militia. Rights are not conferred to "the people," they are presumed, and protected by the government. Thus, though the militia is indissocialble from the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right stands on its own, upon the existence of "the people," without association with, or contingent upon, the militia.

The preamble to the right does not modify the right. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." is not a clause limiting the main clause (the subject of which is "the right", and the verb is "shall"), rather it's a participle indicating the necessity of "the right" for maintaining a militia--NOT that a militia is neccessary for the the existence of the right.

So then I can walk down the street with a rocket launcher?

That is a right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

In the case I cited, the Supreme Court DOES uphold the right to bear arms. It does not uphold the individual's right to posess any kind of arm he so desires, and I agree with that decision.

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms to accomodate a national defense, AND the security of a free state, AND individual self defense, neccessarily requires, in this day and age, the arms of this day and age--namely guns, but also any other kind of arms appropriate for the security of a free state. I think it was rather thoughtful of those who crafted the 2nd amendment to use language that foresaw the needs of defending liberty with those tools that future technologies would provide.

Let's adopt (for discussion's sake) that peculiar insistence (usually from the anti-gun crowd ) that the right to keep and bear arms is neccessarily a militia issue. Such insistence asserts that the point of the 2nd was to assure that militiary weaponry (<b>all</b> manner of militiary weaponry) was possessed, in as substantial a way possible, by the people and not just the government.

Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?

Really? Where exactly in the case does the USSC say that one has a right to bear arms?

They don't have to--it's asserted by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Regulation is not infringment. If it were then permits to protest would not exist and "free speech zones" would be ruled unconstitutional.

Well, free speech zones are unconsitutional in that they clearly abridge "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Laws regulating arms do not contradict the constitution, just as a "free speech zone" does not contradict the 1st amendment.

You're right in that they don't neccessarily have to contradict the constitution, but you're wrong in the assertion that they don't.

 

[Larkinn]

Why do some people fear decent, civilized folks with guns? What plans do these "fearful" have for the decent civilized folks, such that armed, decent, civilized folks present such a problem that disarmament must occur first?

Decent civilized folks like Kazmierczak, right?

Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?

Because guns are only used for defense, right?

Firstly, practically everyone is a member of the militia these days.

Pray tell exactly what definition you are using since approximately 60% of the US population doesn't fall into any of those categories. Hardly "practically everyone".

Secondly, the Second Amendment does not, in any manner state that the right to bear arms is contingent upon the existence of the militia--it says the the existence of the militia is contingent upon the right to keep and bear arms, and the existence of the militia is essential to the secuity of a free state.

mmm another constitutional law scholar.

There is no link between the necessity of the militia and the exercise of the right. The right exists on its own, and the federal governemt has (or at least claimed at the authoring of the constitution) no jurisdiction over other applications of "the right" other than those specified under the government's responsibility to national defense. Thus, whereas the federal government could not make constutional notation regarding hunting, or target shooting, or various other excersises of "the right"--it could make notation regarding national defense via the militia, over which it was empowered to assume jurisdiction, and did so to establish the federal interest in recognizing and protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Actually it does have jurisdiction over that right. See numerous court cases starting with the one Gunny cited, US v. Miller and ending up with Prinz.

That is a right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Umm, no. That is an idiotic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?

K...lets sell Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc, etc, nukes them. Awesome reasoning there.

They don't have to--it's asserted by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Actually they interpret exactly what it says, not you, and they don't agree with you.

 

[LOki]

Decent civilized folks like Kazmierczak, right?

Why do you ignore the decency and civility of his victims? Or everybody else around him?

Because guns are only used for defense, right?

Did I say this? I think not. And you certainly ignored point. BRAVO!

Pray tell exactly what definition you are using since approximately 60% of the US population doesn't fall into any of those categories. Hardly "practically everyone".

Well, if you try to explain to women, or anybody else able bodied, how they can't be in the militia you might find that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause">you're wrong</a>.

mmm another constitutional law scholar.

It's just <a href="http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm">plain english</a>, pal.

Actually it does have jurisdiction over that right. See numerous court cases starting with the one Gunny cited, US v. Miller and ending up with Prinz.

As if the Supreme Court has never been proven wrong.

Umm, no. That is an idiotic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Read the 2nd Amendment. In what way is a rocket launcher not arms? In what way is walking down the street with a rocket launcher not bearing arms?

K...lets sell Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc, etc, nukes them. Awesome reasoning there.

Irrelevent to the point, and submitted as if we haven't done so.

Actually they interpret exactly what it says, not you, and they don't agree with you.

As if the Supreme Court has never been proven wrong.

 

[Larkinn]

Why do you ignore the decency and civility of his victims? Or everybody else around him?

And you know they are decent and civil, how exactly?

Did I say this? I think not. And you certainly ignored point. BRAVO!

*sigh*...I was mocking your point with the fairly obvious response that if you say that people should have the best defense possible, by giving them that you are also providing them with the best offense possible.

Well, if you try to explain to women, or anybody else able bodied, how they can't be in the militia you might find that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause">you're wrong</a>.

You didn't say practically anyone COULD be a member of the militia you said they already ARE a member of the militia. So no, I'm not wrong.

It's just <a href="http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm">plain english</a>, pal.

Cause English words only have one interpretation, right? Try reading some Wittgenstein, or Quine.

As if the Supreme Court has never been proven wrong.

So you trust Roy Copperud over the USSC when interpreting the Constitution? Right....

Read the 2nd Amendment. In what way is a rocket launcher not arms? In what way is walking down the street with a rocket launcher not bearing arms?

Oh it is bearing arms, but if you read that the 2nd amendment to allow that, you are taking textualism to its absurd result. Even Scalia wouldn't agree with you on that.

Irrelevent to the point, and submitted as if we haven't done so.

Actually its quite relevant since it is exactly the point you are arguing. They should have any arms they want for self defense. You just don't like it because it shows the utter absurdity of your position.

As if the Supreme Court has never been proven wrong.

As if you have more skill in interpreting the Constitution than they do.

 

[LOki]

And you know they are decent and civil, how exactly?

Irrelevent.

*sigh*...I was mocking your point with the fairly obvious response that if you say that people should have the best defense possible, by giving them that you are also providing them with the best offense possible.

So? You're still ignoring the point.

You didn't say practically anyone COULD be a member of the militia you said they already ARE a member of the militia. So no, I'm not wrong.

Cool, you can be both pedantic and wrong.

Still, there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that makes belonging to a militia a prerequisite for the right to keep and bear arms.

Cause English words only have one interpretation, right? Try reading some Wittgenstein, or Quine.

This is how you evade a response? Citing relativists? BRAVO!

Fine. Apply your demand that the english words used to form the 2nd Amendment are so obsure as to cause them to mean somethin other than what I claim they mean.

So you trust Roy Copperud over the USSC when interpreting the Constitution? Right....

No. I consider him to be the better expert on English though.

Oh it is bearing arms, but if you read that the 2nd amendment to allow that, you are taking textualism to its absurd result.

What is so awfully absurd?

Even Scalia wouldn't agree with you on that.

Submitted as if Scalia can't be wrong.

Actually its quite relevant since it is exactly the point you are arguing.

It actually not. It's much closer to the point YOU are arguing.

They should have any arms they want for self defense.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

You just don't like it because it shows the utter absurdity of your position.

No. I don't like it because it's your reasoning and not mine.

As if you have more skill in interpreting the Constitution than they do.

As if I don't? What do you think you're driving at?

 

[Larkinn]

Irrelevent.

You made a claim. I asked you how you knew that claim. It is not irrelevant at all.

So? You're still ignoring the point.

No, I responded to the point.

Cool, you can be both pedantic and wrong.

Lmao, pedantic? The difference is between my statement being correct and being incorrect. Nothing pedantic about that. But of course you want to read it in such a deceptive way so that my statement appears incorrect.

Still, there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that makes belonging to a militia a prerequisite for the right to keep and bear arms.

Sure there is. Unless you think they brought up militia just for fun.

This is how you evade a response? Citing relativists? BRAVO!

Umm, no. Neither are relativististic in the least.

Fine. Apply your demand that the english words used to form the 2nd Amendment are so obsure as to cause them to mean somethin other than what I claim they mean.

When did I say they were obscure?

No. I consider him to be the better expert on English though.

Ah, because thats the only way to interpret the Constitution? Pure textualism is absurd.

What is so awfully absurd?

About allowing people to walk down the street with rocket launchers? Really? Its not patently ******* obvious? An obviously offensive weapon that can do mass harm?

Submitted as if Scalia can't be wrong.

LMFAO...No. Submitted as if (which is in fact true) Scalia is an extreme textualist, but you go even farther into the absurd that even he would.

It actually not. It's much closer to the point YOU are arguing.

Right...cause I am arguing that everyone should be armed to the teeth since we all need to be able to defend outselves

That's not at all what I'm saying.

Actually, yes it is. See here:

Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?

No. I don't like it because it's your reasoning and not mine.

Its me taking your absurd reasoning to its logical conclusion.

As if I don't? What do you think you're driving at?

...the obvious conclusion that you don't.

 

[LOki]

You made a claim. I asked you how you knew that claim. It is not irrelevant at all.

Ok. My claim is that you're ignoring their decency and civility--and you are. Whether I know the exact nature of that decency and civility is irrelevent to the point.

No, I responded to the point.

Actually you didn't.

Lmao, pedantic? The difference is between my statement being correct and being incorrect. Nothing pedantic about that. But of course you want to read it in such a deceptive way so that my statement appears incorrect.

Pedantic does not mean "incorrect", even if you are both pedantic and wrong.

Sure there is. Unless you think they brought up militia just for fun.

You can't demonstrate that by reading the 2nd Amendment.

Umm, no. Neither are relativististic in the least.

LOLsome.

When did I say they were obscure?

<blockquote><i>"Cause English words only have one interpretation, right? Try reading some Wittgenstein, or Quine."</i></blockquote><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure">Main Entry: 1<b>ob·scure</b> </a>
Pronunciation: \äb-&#712;skyu&#775;r, &#601;b-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French oscur, obscur, from Latin obscurus
Date: 15th century
1 a: dark, dim b: shrouded in or hidden by darkness c: not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>
<b>2: not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious</b>
3: relatively unknown: as a: remote, secluded <an obscure village> b: not prominent or famous <an obscure poet>
4: constituting the unstressed vowel \&#601;\ or having unstressed \&#601;\ as its value

Ah, because thats the only way to interpret the Constitution? Pure textualism is absurd.

Absurd is the notion that the 2nd Amendment says something other than what it says.

About allowing people to walk down the street with rocket launchers? Really? Its not patently ******* obvious? An obviously offensive weapon that can do mass harm?

Yes, that. What exactly is wrong with that.

LMFAO...No. Submitted as if (which is in fact true) Scalia is an extreme textualist, but you go even farther into the absurd that even he would.

What, exactly, is absurd about the assertion that the 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says, and that is exactly what it was meant to say?

Right...cause I am arguing that everyone should be armed to the teeth since we all need to be able to defend outselves

That is not what I said you are arguing.

Actually, yes it is. See here:

That quote is an assertion different from the one you claim I'm arguing.

Its me taking your absurd reasoning to its logical conclusion.

No. It's taking my reasoning in the opposite direction.

...the obvious conclusion that you don't.

Then it should be easy to illustrate--do so.

 

[Larkinn]

Ok. My claim is that you're ignoring their decency and civility--and you are. Whether I know the exact nature of that decency and civility is irrelevent to the point.

Lmao...I'm ignoring something that you don't know whether exists or not. I didn't ask you to describe the exact nature of it, I asked you to describe how you know its there.

Actually you didn't.

Stunning argument

Pedantic does not mean "incorrect", even if you are both pedantic and wrong.

I know what pedantic means, thanks. Try reading what I said.

You can't demonstrate that by reading the 2nd Amendment.

Sure I can.

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 right of the people who are part of a militia shall not have their right to bear arms infringed upon. This is through the interpretative idea that everything in a sentence means something, or it would not have been included. Your interpretation leaves out the militia and makes it extra nonsense.

LOLsome.

...

Try reading them, then get back to me. Neither were relativists. That you think so shows your ignorance.

Absurd is the notion that the 2nd Amendment says something other than what it says.

Try not to have so many logical flaws. Circular arguments are cute, but so 1994.

Yes, that. What exactly is wrong with that.

Gee, maybe that if the VT guy had a few of those he would have been able to kill a lot more people. Shall we provide him with a tank as well? Maybe a nuclear weapon? Why limit serial killers to only a few dozen victims? Lets allow them to wipe out entire cities even!

What, exactly, is absurd about the assertion that the 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says, and that is exactly what it was meant to say?

tsk...so '94.

That is not what I said you are arguing.

The sarcasm went right over your head.

That quote is an assertion different from the one you claim I'm arguing.

Its basically the same.

No. It's taking my reasoning in the opposite direction.

Sure.

Then it should be easy to illustrate--do so.

Lmao...that the USSC has more skill in interpreting the Constitution than you do? Sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter

David Souters resume. Want to give me yours? Want to tell me what law school you went too? Want to describe the different aspects of Constitutional interpretation? What experience you've had in the field?

 

[LOki]

Lmao...I'm ignoring something that you don't know whether exists or not. I didn't ask you to describe the exact nature of it, I asked you to describe how you know its there.

You're still ignoring their civility and decency. The reason you wish to steer away from it is that considering their civility and decency attacks the moral foundation of your authoritarian paradigm.

Stunning argument

Not an argument at all; an accurate observation. Your response is that people should be afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them, because guns are only used for self defense--a response that does not answer, "<b>Why</b> should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?".

I know what pedantic means, thanks. Try reading what I said.

I don't think you do know the definition of pedantic; because if you did, you'd not insist, in defiance of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, that every able bodied person, regardless of gender or age, is in the militia.

Sure I can.

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 right of the people who are part of a militia shall not have their right to bear arms infringed upon. This is through the interpretative idea that everything in a sentence means something, or it would not have been included. Your interpretation leaves out the militia and makes it extra nonsense.

My interpretation does not leave out the militia, and yours makes an assertion that is not there, and is patently wrong.

The Second Amendment does not say, "The right of the people who are part of a militia...". It says that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. That clause expresses the federal government's interest in recognizing and protecting the right, which is described in the main clause of the sentence: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Rights (any rights) are conditional upon the existence of people, not the militia. Rights are not conferred to "the people," they are presumed, and protected by the government. Thus, though a well regulated militia is indissocialble from the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right stands on its own, upon the existence of "the people," without association with, or contingent upon, the militia.

The preamble to the right does not modify the right. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." is not a clause limiting the main clause (the subject of which is "the right", and the verb is "shall"), rather it's a participle indicating the necessity of "the right" for maintaining a militia--NOT that a militia is neccessary for the the existence of the right.

...

Try reading them, then get back to me. Neither were relativists. That you think so shows your ignorance.

If you're asserting that either Wittgenstein or Quine asserted that words have precise objective meaning, then you should try reading them and get back to me.

Try not to have so many logical flaws. Circular arguments are cute, but so 1994.

Red herring. I made no circular argument.

Gee, maybe that if the VT guy had a few of those he would have been able to kill a lot more people. Shall we provide him with a tank as well? Maybe a nuclear weapon? Why limit serial killers to only a few dozen victims? Lets allow them to wipe out entire cities even!

What the **** are you talking about? Answer the question: what is wrong with walking down the street with a rocket launcher?

tsk...so '94.

tsk...such intellectual cowardice.

The sarcasm went right over your head.

No, it didn't. Try again.

Its basically the same.

Selling nukes to Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc., is unrelated to my argument, and not basically the same as my argument.

Sure.

Absurd is your demand that providing nukes to nations is somehow a neccessary consequence of my argument.

Lmao...that the USSC has more skill in interpreting the Constitution than you do? Sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter

David Souters resume. Want to give me yours? Want to tell me what law school you went too? Want to describe the different aspects of Constitutional interpretation? What experience you've had in the field?

My resume is not relevent, and resumes really don't indicate terribly much about Supreme Court Justices in light of decisions like Dredd Scott, or even your precious Miller case where the justices were monumentally unaware that short barreled shotguns were used by the military in trench warfare.

So, Mr. 1994 Logical Flaws, let's stop trying to use ad-hominem and appeal to authority as a means to avoid addressing the points being made, ok?

 

[Diuretic]

Loki - what is wrong with walking down the street with a rocket launcher?

Context is everything!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Loki - what is wrong with walking down the street with a rocket launcher?

Context is everything!

And no sane person actually claims the Government can not REASONABLY regulate what weapons we can have. Larkinn keeps claiming that the ONLY intrepretation of the second that allows private ownership includes NO limits. A standard that is NOT applied to ANY OTHER Right in the Constitution.

It is fear mongering designed to scare people away from the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms.

The second amendment is clear, it establishes several rights. It provides a promise to the States that they will always have a right to a militia and it establishes that every citizen is given the right to own, possess, and bear arms for self defense, for defense of community and for defense of Nation.

NO other place that the term " the people" appears is there a claim that it is not conveying a PERSONAL right or power.

Amendment II

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.

A personal, individual right.

When the decision to add the Amendments was made over 180 amendments were proposed. These were whittled down to just 10. Most of those 10 Amendments encompass more than one right or concept in them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Every where conceal carry has been approved in the last 20 years the anti gun nuts have claimed it would result in shoot outs in the streets, in wild west gunfights in the cities of the States that approved the concealed carry.

And yet it has not happened ANYWHERE.