crickets...

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Because a court finding for an individual right doesn't validate anything and certainly doesn't justify inaction on solving a very real public health issue.

That's a peculiar phrasing. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of the law.

I'm not arguing the "individual right" determination validates anything or that it justifies inaction. I argue that it invalidates the BS theories that justified gun control action. Whatever inaction is forced is simply respecting the limits of governmental power inherently demanded by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by spence

You can cut and paste all day long, the problem is just getting worse as you spin around and around.

How pathetic.

No matter how you spin it, me proving you to be wrong is not perpetuating the problem of criminal gun use.

You can denigrate my proof as mere cut-n-paste, you can call it spin, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong, irreconcilably wrong on the law. It's past time to admit you have no argument that the Constitution or the law supports you or your gun control agenda.

You need to come up with solutions that do not implicate the right to arms . . . Or you need to come clean and admit that you don't give a crap about the Constitution and you would eagerly vote for people who would violate their oaths to uphold it.

.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

That's a peculiar phrasing. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of the law.

It's an application of the thought process to justify an outcome...or lack of one thereof.

No matter how you spin it, me proving you to be wrong is not perpetuating the problem of criminal gun use.

Ha, OK Jim. Are you dressed all in white as well?

You can denigrate my proof as mere cut-n-paste, you can call it spin, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong, irreconcilably wrong on the law. It's past time to admit you have no argument that the Constitution or the law supports you or your gun control agenda.

You need to come up with solutions that do not implicate the right to arms . . . Or you need to come clean and admit that you don't give a crap about the Constitution and you would eagerly vote for people who would violate their oaths to uphold it.

If the law was so clear there would be no debate. The bigger issue is that the idea of "arms" is not a monolithic thing...yet it's treated as one by some to maintain a divine sensibility intended to kill all progression.

First, you have to admit there's a problem you want to change.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

It's an application of the thought process to justify an outcome...or lack of one thereof.

That is not a rebuttal to what I said; it's just your rationalization for maintaining an indefensible position.

Originally Posted by spence

Ha, OK Jim. Are you dressed all in white as well?

Sigh. Sounds like someone who has nothing left in the brainbank to write a debate check.

Originally Posted by spence

If the law was so clear there would be no debate.

That leftists believe and recite fairy tales doesn't really make for a debate. What point have you made that is legally, constitutionally correct? Where is the "debate" if only one side is presenting facts and citations of verifiable legal decisions?

I guess now you will say my idea of debate is old and outdated and nobody uses facts anymore.

Originally Posted by spence

The bigger issue is that the idea of "arms" is not a monolithic thing...yet it's treated as one by some to maintain a divine sensibility intended to kill all progression.

Speech isn't a monolithic thing either, the term is used as a catch-all for a myriad of expression -- some of which isn't even audible. Arms is a perfectly acceptable term that does not facially limit, qualify, condition or define what is protected . . . As it should be!

Someday you might realize / accept / understand that the right is not created, given, grated or established by the words chosen to secure it and you will stop trying to make the right dependent on words it does not depend upon.

The right to arms is not what can be squeezed from the words of the 2nd Amendment. The right is the silence in the body of the Constitution -- what it doesn't say -- granting any power to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

Originally Posted by spence

First, you have to admit there's a problem you want to change.

I recognize that a problem exists; I just do not agree that the way to solve it is to enact laws that impact those who are not responsible for the problem (and violate fundamental rights in the process).