I didn't try to quote statistics ... but my feeling (and granted, it is solely my feeling) is that if you asked the average person on the street what the freedom to bear arms means, they would not disagree that it means the freedom to own guns for the purposes of sport, hunting, and personal defense. More knowledgeable persons might mention the militia. But I don't think most people associate the 2nd with the militia. I know the Constitution backwards and forwards, and my own opinion, as expressed on that page, is that the inclusion of the militia in the 2nd is obsolete. I expanded on these views in the FR post you referenced in your next message.
The recent paper by the Justice Dept says that the 2nd is unambiguous. It is an individual right, and the reference to militia is self explanatory. -- Did you bother read to it, or is your mind made up?
I read it, but it was some time ago - but regardless, I disagree with their conclusion. The fact that we can debate it at all indicates to be ambiguity. Of course, pro-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is absolute. And, of course, anti-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is infinitely regulatable. This paradox indicates ambiguity. To me at least.
Horrors, a society like New Hampshire's, where men have had the freedom to carry concealed guns about for over 200 years? What a nightmare!
As I understand it, my own state, Vermont, also allows unrestricted concealed carry - which is fine for Vermont, and fine for New Hampshire. We cannot say that what is good for Vermont and New Hampshire is, by definition, good for New York or Florida or California. In those states, restricting concealed carry is a reasonable restriction - in Vermont or New Hamshire, it could become one in the future.
The original thread criticizing your site [and views on guns] is still available. -- Feel free to defend yourself there. In fact, why did you abandon that effort initially? -- You got a lot of civil responses, and never answered.
Ah, I understand your reference now ... I wasinvolved on that thread for several days, I don't think I abandoned it. I stopped responding to the thread and, in fact, looking at the thread because I felt I made all the pertinent points I wanted to make, nothing new was being said, and time no longer permitted me to keep up. I came here because I wanted to address your concerns that I am "howling mad."
I didn't try to quote statistics ... but my feeling (and granted, it is solely my feeling) is that if you asked the average person on the street what the freedom to bear arms means, they would not disagree that it means the freedom to own guns for the purposes of sport, hunting, and personal defense.
True enough. And the 2nd quite clearly says that it is not to be infringed. Period.
More knowledgeable persons might mention the militia. But I don't think most people associate the 2nd with the militia.
The militia phrase is self explanatory, except to those who use it to confuse the issue.
I know the Constitution backwards and forwards, and my own opinion, as expressed on that page, is that the inclusion of the militia in the 2nd is obsolete.
So? You can ignore it then. The fact remains that the framers thought it was a self evident explanation of WHY the Right was not to be infringed.
I expanded on these views in the FR post you referenced in your next message.
The recent paper by the Justice Dept says that the 2nd is unambiguous. It is an individual right, and the reference to militia is self explanatory. -- Did you bother read to it, or is your mind made up?
I read it, but it was some time ago - but regardless, I disagree with their conclusion. The fact that we can debate it at all indicates to be ambiguity.
Its only ambiguous to you. You're begging the real question of whether we have an inalienable right to keep & bear arms. We do..
Of course, pro-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is absolute.
Pro-Constitutionalists make that point. Others differ.
And, of course, anti-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is infinitely regulatable. This paradox indicates ambiguity. To me at least.
And to me, at least, such a position repudiates one of our most fundamental individual rights. It is "repugnant" to basic Constitutional principles, in Justice John Marshall's view.
____________________________________
Horrors, a society like New Hampshire's, where men have had the freedom to carry concealed guns about for over 200 years? What a nightmare!
As I understand it, my own state, Vermont, also allows unrestricted concealed carry - which is fine for Vermont, and fine for New Hampshire.
'Allows". -- There you go again, assuming that a State has a power under the US Constitution, - to infringe on our Right to bear arms. - They do not.
We cannot say that what is good for Vermont and New Hampshire is, by definition, good for New York or Florida or California. In those states, restricting concealed carry is a reasonable restriction - in Vermont or New Hamshire, it could become one in the future.
Virtual prohibitions on concealed carry are reasonable? -- Your claim that you "- know the Constitution backwards and forwards - ", is wearing thin.
Article VI says that the 2nd Amendment, is part of the " - Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. - "
Unreasonable restrictions on concealed carry are a clear infringement.