Posted on 04/09/2021 8:59:42 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
It’s only silly to cowards and morons who can’t grapple with the issues posed.
You can’t be an absolutist and deny inmates weapons. That’s not absolute.
That is avoiding the hypothetical.
I didn’t make an argument. I posed a question that it seems many don’t want to grapple with.
Why not a “yes” or a “no?”
You can be an absolutist and say that the 2nd Amendment does protect the development and bearing of that weapon and deal with Joe’s behavior. You have to grapple with the consequences though.
Likewise you can say “no” but then you have to grapple with what the 2nd Amendment clearly says. You also have a line drawing problem. Once you suggest a line you have to prove WHY that line is where it should be based on the text of the 2nd Amendment.
The lack of willingness to think and grapple with tough questions is clearly an increasingly prevalent problem among both the left and the right. Public schools and social media have destroyed critical thinking and the ability to think in favor of knee jerk and bumper sticker slogans.
Name calling now?
Bkmk
The truth doesn’t care about your feelings.
Here is more if you are interested.
You really need to read the 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Yes, the law requiring a special license and more extensive background check for owning fully automatic firearms is a measure for regulating a higher level of competence in owners of such firearms.
Without the repeated pushes for bans against semi-automatic, modern sporting rifles by the more privileged among urban and suburb dwellers and by frustrated exes, there would be no backlash rising in favor of deregulating the ownership of fully automatic firearms. There are well over 20 million modern sporting rifles “in common use” now, and such rifles account for an extremely small number of murders committed by firearms.
With populism certainly on the rise and talk of stacking the Supremes, though, deregulation fully automatic firearms in the very near future is a likelihood. It’s a “make my day” moment in politics.
Neighbors in my part of the country are very conscientious about where they point their firearms while practicing and hunting. The sound of firearms doesn’t bother anyone here. Can’t say the same about many of the folks in blue doper states, but I don’t see a downside to that, either.
And speaking of dope, it would seem more logical to go after drug abuse in blue doper states instead of outlawing self-defense while legalizing dope.
Your responses are coherent, logical and actually address the hypothetical. Too many people simply run from questions instead of engaging.
I applaud you.
I have no idea what your game is, but I think you are playing.
You seem to either want weapons infringed, or else you want inmates in federal prisons to be given guns. I can't quite figure out what your precise position is, but I can figure out that it's stupid.
Thanks for comment #88. A few weeks ago, someone argued with me for days against any Second Amendment right to concealed carry and used cases from the 1800s to support his arguments. Don’t know why people here cheered him on.
the “gun grab’ is about getting the border mess and the Ukraine mess of the front page
The packing of the Supreme Court will now begin. How dare they stand in the way of the gun grabbing left wing crazies desire to rule USA citizens.
We are pretty much convinced that SCOTUS’ testicals are locked up in the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist/Communist Democrat’s lockbox.
What indications do we have that, despite President Trump’s effort to obtain a more balanced SCOTUS, they will rule FOR the Constitution and We the People?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.