OK, so in your opinion should the AR15 fall within that definition or not?
The authors of the 2nd amendment understood what they wrote and documented their thoughts at the time. “Militia” was not a random word thrown in. It doesn’t involve defining anything. There would be no expectation that future citizens would use a blunderbuss in a militia. Logic dictates that it would be the the standard bearer weapon of it’s time. In this case, the AR-15 fits right in with the intent of the law.
My opinion is the I am not qualified to make a decision of that nature until a clear definition of “arms” is defined by experts and agreed upon by the courts, at which time everyone will know whether or not a weapon falls within the definition or not.
Great, but you are probably in for a long wait for your definition. Until then I am sure that you intuitively have an opinion on the AR15. Intuitively do you think guns like the AR15 should be in the hands of citizens or outlawed? It’s really a simple question.
Unlike you, I try to avoid answering questions I am unqualified to answer, and I try to withhold opinions if I feel I haven’t got enough information to work with. Either you are capable of understanding this simple concept and are deliberately ignoring it, or you are incapable of understanding it.
Either way, I’m not going to respond to further queries along these lines.
Whenever possible, I try to remember these words:
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” —Harlan Ellison
That’s fine. I just wanted to see what lengths you would go to avoid answering a simple question. Forgive me if I don’t believe you are unqualified to render your own personal opinion on such a simple subject. Reading between the lines I think I can tell where you stand.
Do you feel capable of rendering an opinion on the article I linked in the OP? If so, what is that opinion?
I think I am done talking to those who would put their own spin on what I say and read things between lines that simply aren’t there. If you want to have imaginary conversations feel free to do so, but leave my name out of it, lest someone ignorant of your methods thinks I actually hold opinions you erroniously ascribe to me.
Erroneous? You have been all over the recent gun control thread arguing from a “gun grabber” perspective. Anyone can see where you are coming from. My guess is you just don’t want to make your views explicit thereby opening them to criticism.
I understand your debate strategy, it’s easier to attack than defend.
Czarcasm, I would encourage you not to bother with any sort of review of articles foisted by Kable. After you bother to read through it and offer a response, your response will be selectively quoted, and then you’ll be faced with a ceaseless repetition of the question of what precisely was incorrect about the article.
As if it is not possible to assemble a set of facts that are arguably true, but then provide an overall summary and interpretation of those facts that is erroneous and without merit.
Yeah, don’t read the article, you might learn something.
I’m happy you agree the facts in the article are true. I would like to see you demonstrate that the interpretation and conclusions of those facts are not true. Maybe you think it was purely coincidental that the Armenians that were armed fared better than those who were disarmed?
Thank you, Alex Jones.
Joshua Boston did a fine job tonight.