Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

In reply to the discussion: Who gets free speech? [View all]
 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
35. Well needledriver, I think there is nothing left of the "Militia" arguments made in this thread.
Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:32 PM
Oct 2012

The "it's not comparable" claim in post 2 has been demolished with an analogous constitutional statement from the same era. The semantic argument of posts 2 and 4 has been demolished by simply letting the English speak for itself--with the same principle of English interpretation being shown to work perfectly in the analogous constitutional statement from the era and in a comparable sentence in modern English.

Many other logical, historical and scholarly arguments have been presented.

Any one who reads through this thread can see that there is nothing left of the Militia arguments that have been made.

What will be interesting to see will be if the same person whose arguments have been demolished will make the same arguments in an attempt to deceive others who haven't seen them reduced to rubble.

I've seen it over and over again. Folks who have carefully avoided the strongest arguments and who have stubbornly clung to their preconceived notions in the face of the strongest possible evidence will not only fail to admit it when it's in their faces, but will brazenly repeat the same nonsense in an attempt to take in people who haven't seen the evidence.

Time will tell, I guess.

Who gets free speech? [View all] needledriver Sep 2012 OP
Are you trying to end discussion of da militia clause in one swift blow? Tsk-tsk.nt Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #1
Not comparable. COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #2
Does it reasonably follow from the structure of 2A that the only purpose of RKBA petronius Oct 2012 #3
Not a question of whether it "reasonably COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #4
The Supreme Court disagrees with you: needledriver Oct 2012 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #26
And yet that has never been the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted (by the Supreme Court) TPaine7 Oct 2012 #6
Interesting, thanks. I'll have to do some more reading... (nt) petronius Oct 2012 #8
The purpose and scope... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #10
In pari materia is used to try and resolve an COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #18
In pari materia discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #19
Just because opinions differ does not COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #23
I don't answer questions twice. discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #27
Hard to point out ambiguity when there isn't any. COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #30
Near impossible to overcome a prejudice n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #31
In considering your opinion... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #37
The entire purpose of applying COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #38
Your whole argument is based on a misreading of the Second Amendment. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #21
You can try and run through semantic circles COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #24
You have it exactly backwards. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #32
It's called a Whereas. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #11
Well, for starters - COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #12
I didn't say the first amendment. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #14
I was referring to the hypothetical language you COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #16
It's a substitution. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #34
The prefatory clause is quite similar to the current use of whereas, as you say. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #33
According to... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #9
Where do you get that from the language of COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #13
The exact language: discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #15
Where do you get the idea that RKBA is COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #17
Your claim... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #20
You are assuming that such a non-enumerated COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #25
From history... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #28
British Common Law for starters - the Bill of Rights from 1689 hack89 Oct 2012 #29
Actually it is quite comparable. In fact, a very close analogue exists from that timeframe. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #22
I think it's obvious 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #7
Well needledriver, I think there is nothing left of the "Militia" arguments made in this thread. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #35
Who gets free speech? Oneka Oct 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Who gets free speech?»Reply #35