Goobieman

A swing and a miss!!

If such a thing is "actually irrelevant" to your agument, as you seem to think, then there's no real reason to NOT admt it. Right?

So...again...why not admit that the 2nd does indeed protect an individual right?

Or...again... maybe you just don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're so obviously and demonstrably wrong?

__________________
Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.
- Hillary Clinton
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/14843.html

Scucca

There is nothing intellectual with the posts to you. You're clearly not interested in such discourse. If you do change your mind, have a go at Winkler's:

Yet we are just as likely to see the Court applying the same deferential scrutiny that prevails at the state level—regardless of whether the Court calls it reasonable regulation, intermediate scrutiny, or even strict scrutiny. If that prediction is correct, then the reinterpretation of the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms will have only a marginal impact on the constitutionality of gun control.

If you can't, then you're not going to achieve 'interesting'

__________________

Goobieman

OK then -- no more maybes about it.

(And yes, there's very little intellectual with (your) posts to me )

You obviously do NOT have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're so obviously and demonstrably wrong -- thus, so very clearly self-sodomizing your credibility as a sentient being.

Congrats!!

Scucca

Instead of you attempting to counter Winkler's remark, you come out with this silliness. Clearly intellectual discourse is not on the agenda!

Can any of the gun fanatics reply to the argument that "the reinterpretation of the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms will have only a marginal impact on the constitutionality of gun control"? Page after page of low brow use of the 2nd Amendment as "an amazing device for obscuring inconvenient truths" is getting a tad too much to stomach

Goobieman

So, now that we have established that the 2nd amendment does indeed protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, what argument is there that infringements on that right should be/must be/can be tolerated?

After all, if we can simply ignore the Constitution whenever it is simple "common sense" to do so, what point is there in having a Constitution at all?

Scucca

Let see if we can get a gun fanatic to charge into intellectual discourse with the following from Emerson:

Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country.

Anyone spot the inconsistency for the constitutional law expert? (I've given a clue)

Voidwar

What is and what isn't "reasonable" is the decision of the right holder.
That's why its a right, and not a priviledge.

As such, the right holder is perfectly free to conclude that any and all exceptions or restrictions are unreasonable.

Goobieman

"Reasonable" as defined by the courts in the face of strict scrutinization isn't anywhere near the same as what is "reasonable" as defined by some bigoted anti-gun cretin that cannot admit he is so woefully wrong.

It may very well be constitutionally "reasonable" for those convicted of violent crime to be denied certain rights; only a true maroon would go so far as to even ponder that it is constitutionally "reasonable" for the law to require that you obtain permission from your spouse before you exercise those same rights.

Scucca

The comment was confused. We have strict scrutiny with "narrowly
tailored", but then a much lower level of scrutiny with "reasonable" ("Traditionally, reasonableness review is a relatively deferential type of scrutiny under which most laws are upheld" Winkler)

Voidwar

I guess my point was that "reasonable" gets nowhere in the face of "shall not be infringed".

I disagree with this practice, as well as disenfranchisement.
Debt is paid. Practice is not constitutional due to cruel and unusual, let alone the notion that it creates a second class citizenship.