View Single Post
Old 09-11-2019, 12:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Again, this isn't about good debate, bad debate or effective debate.
This is about dishonest debate, specifically about arguing on and on about the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, then declaring much later that it doesn't matter anyway because you've got a superlegal right to your weapons no matter what the 2nd says.
See, this is where you are totally wrong. First of all the Gun grabbers debate from a position of glorious ignorance- and are even proud of it. They dont know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto, that a bolt action can be fired just about as fast a a full auto, and the difference between calibres. They want to just ban something, even if they cant define what that thing is.

They also think that the National Gd is still the militia.

Most of the Gun grabbers debates on the 2nd revolve around details of the comma, and what the Militia clause is. They think they have telling, critical , winning points about "well organized' and a comma and the militia clause- while in reality they just arent Constitutional scholars.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a individual right, and that the right to defend your self, your home and your family has nothing whatsoever to do with the Militia clause, a comma or "well regulated". So, any debate by armchair amateurs over the Militia clause, a comma or "well regulated" is pointless. The Law and the right to defend your self has moved on. It's done. It may not be 'dishonest, but it's pointless. That ship has sailed and anyone who thinks the militia clause limits a individual sright to own a gun to defend themselves is being dishonest. It's over dude.

What can be debated?:

Should the Second be repealed? (Not gonna happen)

What limitations can and should be put upon guns after Heller?

That's a solid debate. See, SCOTUS has said "assault weapon" bans are Ok. So, should we ban assault weapons? What are assault weapons? Would such a ban do anything significant?

There are a number of other things which can be debated under the way the Supreme court has ruled.

But arguing that Heller is a bad decision because it wasnt unanimous (Few great decisions are), or that it was political (they all are), etc is indeed dishonest debate.

So, yes OP, I agree, there's been lots of dishonest debate here- but not on the side you think.