Doc Howl

That sounds like Bush telling Canada they had "given up their sovereignty" by insisting on using it.

"A celebration of coercion", indeed. Hyperbole is not a valid argument.

__________________
HIMEOBS: More fun than you really wanted.

Scucca

Given the varied negative effects on crime (as shown by the available empirical evidence), that is what it amounts to

I'm always going to prefer a constitutional law expert to your opinion. Sorry and all that.

__________________

Doc Howl

No sweat. I prefer to actually read the damn thing myself. It isn't exactly difficult to read.

Scucca

Here's a random chosen section from Winkler's article:

"The state constitutional practice of applying deferential review in right-to- bear-arms cases extends back well over a century. In the late nineteenth century, state supreme courts began asking whether gun safety regulation were "reasonable." In State v. Shelby, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld a prohibition on possession of firearms by intoxicated individuals against a challenge under the state's constitution. While explaining that the state constitution "secures to the citizen the right to bear arms in the defense of his home, person, and property," the court argued that the "statute is designed to promote personal security, and to check and put down lawlessness, and is thus in perfect harmony with the constitution."' "[W]e are of the opinion the act is but a reasonable regulation of the use of . . . arms, and to which the citizen must yield," the court concluded. In the decades since, the reasonable regulation test has spread throughout the states with constitutional provisions guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms."

There's 52 pages of justification for his conclusions. I recommend you track it down and then get back to me. I'm not going to find your attempt to ignore a constitutional law expert, purely out of inconvenience, appealing.

Doc Howl

I have one justification for my conclusion:

Amendment 2
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.

Why do I need to read 52 pages, when I can read one compound sentence?

Scucca

To learn?

Here's another randomly chosen section:

"In an opinion in the Nordyke case. Ninth Circuit Judge Ronald Gould strongly endorsed the view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms." The standard he would choose? "[A]n individual Second Amendment right" should be "subject to reasonable government regulation."

The consideration of public safety is certainly reasonable government regulation

Doc Howl

It's also an infringement.

Lachean

No consideration of safety carries the value of a single liberty. The whole point of a constitution is that there are certain rights that the people cannot vote away.

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

Scucca

I'm afraid you've taken a "I won't consider rationality" approach to this issue. The attempt to use the constitution to justify that approach just doesn't wash. Here's Winkler (constitutional law specialist) again:

"Laws that effectively abolish the right to possess firearms or are applied in extraordinary factual circumstances that give rise to a sense of profound unfairness may be called into question. But outside of those narrow areas, an individual right to bear arms has not traditionally interfered with gun control. The Second Amendment may receive a second look, yet the standard of review may prove much more important to the future of gun control than the substantive construction of the underlying right. Few laws are likely to run afoul of whatever right—individual or collective—the Second Amendment is read to protect"

Doc Howl

Naw, I've taken a "I can read a simple sentence" approach.

I fail to see how reading makes one irrational.

But nice try at an ad hominem attack, Sparky.