Which "arms" should be protected by the Second Amendment?

[Bone]

@Measure_for_Measure

Not sure what to say here. I had 2 posters express skepticism about the prospects of woman in question if she didn’t wield a stun gun. The quote said it was a good thing she did have a stun gun. The clear implication is that she would in serious trouble without the stun gun. Do you deny this?

Yes - in so much as you claim you had quotes that say what you think they said. Notice how both in your original post and this one you do not actually “quote” what you are talking about. Normally when you draw conclusions from some text you can quote it so the reader can judge whether your summation is reasonable.

Are you conceding that the stun gun wasn’t necessary to her self defense, as she was in a public area?

No.

Do you concede that the implication that her assailant fled the situation was not necesarily caused by the weapon in question - or to be more specific that while it might have been a proximate cause, it wasn’t necessarily an ultimate cause?

No.

See? Direct questions, responded to with direct answers. I’ll ask again, since again you failed to answer, though you seem to think you did. After this I’ll drop it since if you don’t or won’t answer it just becomes unseemly pestering. I’ll parse the questions for you to make it easier.
[ol]
[li]Do you believe that Caetano should be a convicted felon?[/li][li]Do you believe that tun guns should be outside the scope of the 2nd amendment?[/li][li]Do you believe that Caetano who is nearly a foot shorter and close to 100 pounds lighter than her abuser should not have used a weapon to defend herself?[/li][li]Do you believe that Caetano should have relied on a layered defense approach including deescalation, voice, stance and flight?[/li][/ol]

So to those questions, you answered, “I said that women’s shelters should be permitted to issue weapons licenses.” But that’s not responsive to any of the questions. You may as well tell me if you like bacon for all the relevance. Then you go on to criticize Heller in a sideways manner, which also is about as relevant as the height of a fully loaded Prius.

There have been no strawman arguments introduced. A strawman argument consists on an attack on an argument that nobody has made or would make. I refer to the NRA as they are a predominant advocate for gun culture- more guns, all the time.

I appreciate the comedic irony here, though I can’t be sure if it was intentional. But defending against the charge of a strawman while in the same paragraph engaging in the same strawman is surely an achievement. Not only have you concocted a new definition of a straw man, but you’ve also extended it to the additional parties you’ve introduced. Do you understand you are not posting on the NRA message board? No one but you is making an argument that involves the NRA. You seem to be fixated on that organization - but without someone actually involving the NRA in their argument you are simply attacking an argument not present. That’s a strawman.
(and incidentally, your summation of their position is also incorrect, but that’s not germane to this thread so I’ll leave it alone).

ETA: Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with me, but I don’t think that’s what you were asking in your paragraph. Were you asking for my understanding of SCOTUS precedent?

Yes, the questions were in the context of our current reality. Otherwise I could be asking you what color the sky is and you can say “It’s red, obviously the entire world disagrees with me but that’s what I think!”.

If you want to make private gun ownership a right, I suggest you pass an applicable constitutional amendment, one that doesn’t bring up militias.

Maybe one day. But currently that would be unnecessary because my arguments have won and yours have lost.

[Lumpy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

2. Scalia constantly excoriated other justices for expanding fundamental rights that went beyond those “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”

If you want traditionalism taken to the limit, see Robertson v Baldwin (165 U.S. 275 (1897)), which rejected a claim that forcing merchant sailors to involuntarily return to their ships constituted slavery. The court ruled in effect “but we’ve always done it that way”. The majority opinion was that the Bill of Rights had exceptions grandfathered into it from common law (!):

The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.

And although with regard to sailors the ruling was made moot by later legislation, as far as I know the general principle espoused was never repudiated. :eek:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I can do better than that.

Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U. S. 200 (1922), was a suit for treble damages instituted by a member of the Federal League (Baltimore) against the National and American Leagues and others. The plaintiff obtained a verdict in the trial court, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The main brief filed by the plaintiff with this Court discloses that it was strenuously argued, among other things, that the business in which the defendants were engaged was interstate commerce; that the interstate relationship among the several clubs, located as they were in different States, was predominant; that organized baseball represented an investment of colossal wealth; that it was an engagement in moneymaking; that gate receipts were divided by agreement between the home club and the visiting club; and that the business of baseball was to be distinguished from the mere playing of the game as a sport for physical exercise and diversion. See also 259 U.S. at 259 U. S. 201-206.

Mr. Justice Holmes, in speaking succinctly for a unanimous Court, said: “The business is giving exhibitions of baseball, which are purely state affairs. . . . But the fact that, in order to give the exhibitions, the Leagues must induce free persons to cross state lines and must arrange and pay for their doing so is not enough to change the character of the business. . . . [T]he transport is a mere incident, not the essential thing. That to which it is incident, the exhibition, although made for money, would not be called trade or commerce in the commonly accepted use of those words. . . If we are right, the plaintiff’s business is to be described in the same way, and the restrictions by contract that prevented the plaintiff from getting players to break their bargains and the other conduct charged against the defendants were not an interference with commerce among the States.”

<snip>

In view of all this, it seems appropriate now to say that… Professional baseball is a business, and it is engaged in interstate commerce… The Court has emphasized that, since 1922, baseball, with full and continuing congressional awareness, has been allowed to develop and to expand unhindered by federal legislative action. Remedial legislation has been introduced repeatedly in Congress, but none has ever been enacted. The Court, accordingly, has concluded that Congress as yet has had no intention to subject baseball’s reserve system to the reach of the antitrust statutes.

The Court has expressed concern about the confusion and the retroactivity problems that inevitably would result with a judicial overturning of Federal Baseball. It has voiced a preference that, if any change is to be made, it come by legislative action that, by its nature, is only prospective in operation… This emphasis and this concern are still with us. We continue to be loath, 50 years after Federal Baseball and almost two decades after Toolson, to overturn those cases judicially when Congress, by its positive inaction, has allowed those decisions to stand for so long and, far beyond mere inference and implication, has clearly evinced a desire not to disapprove them legislatively.

Accordingly, we adhere once again to Federal Baseball and Toolson, and to their application to professional baseball. We adhere also to International Boxing and Radovich, and to their respective applications to professional boxing and professional football. If there is any inconsistency or illogic in all this, it is an inconsistency and illogic of long standing that is to be remedied by the Congress, and not by this Court.

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972)

In other words, “although professional baseball is clearly interstate commerce, and therefore within the reach of federal antitrust law, we’re not going to correct our incorrect decisions on the subject because it’s been too long and Congress can fix it.”

[Siam_Sam]

@Lumpy

List of coups and coup attempts - Wikipedia

Just the ones after WW2 take up half the page. And even disallowing one dictator overthrowing his predecessor, the phase “democratically elected” (past tense) and “dissolve/d parliament” show up distressingly often.

Again, this thread is about the U.S. and Americans. Or are you saying Americans owning guns at home would deter coups inside foreign countries?

[Scumpup]

@Siam_Sam

Again, this thread is about the U.S. and Americans. Or are you saying Americans owning guns at home would deter coups inside foreign countries?

That certainly was a clumsy attempt to shout Lumpy down.
Can we count on to you make a “this thread is about the US” post the next time a gun control proponent posts about the UK, Japan, and other “civilized nations” having better gun laws?

[Siam_Sam]

They do have better laws, but isn’t this thread about what should be allowed under the Second Amendment? What does that have to do with Third World coups?

[Scumpup]

It was clear that he was illustrating that, in the real world, coups do happen. Even in modern times. Is it your contention that, since he cannot point at one happening previously in the US, a coup will never happen here?

[Siam_Sam]

I think most people are able to estimate the likelihood of a coup happening in the US.

[Scumpup]

@Siam_Sam

I think most people are able to estimate the likelihood of a coup happening in the US.

You didn’t answer the question I asked you. Are you contending that since there has not been a coup in the United States that one will never occur?

[Siam_Sam]

That’s starting to sound like extreme paranoia.

[Scumpup]

You still didn’t answer the question.

[Bone]

Charges in the Caetano case were dropped, and Caetano was declared not guilty:

Indeed, Caetano’s lawyer, Benjamin Keehn, reports that Caetano got more than just dismissal of the charges: Rather, she was formally found not guilty. “The judge … agreed that the record should show that she was vindicated, and found [her] not guilty after a jury-waived, facts-stipulated trial. [The j]udge then allowed a petition to seal her record.

It was all about her record — a record check by a landlord or prospective employer showing that a felony weapons charge had been dismissed (after a guilty verdict had been vacated) would have been very problematic. So the [not guilty] plus the allowed petition to seal should put her as close to what should have been the correct status quo ante, which is that she would not have been charged in the first place for exercising her right to armed self-defense in the face of an unconstitutional statute (which is still on the books — but the client comes first).

Unfortunate that the statue is still on the books, but this is a good outcome for Caetano. I suspect prosecutors were partially motivated by not wanting the entire statute struck down.