Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Would you recognize straight?
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“Xanthro, let me get this straight: you're saying the U.S. Constitution, the most basic purpose of which is to rest the national defense with the U.S. government and not the states (except in emergencies), is somehow in conflict with the 2A -- the effect (not "affect") of which is to protect the power of states to have militias? Good luck with that! and when you succeed in getting a court to buy off on that argument, do let me know.”
Is setting up straw man arguments your preferred method of avoiding issues, or is it playing grammar Nazi?
That’s not my argument, and only someone with a reading disorder, or who deliberately engages in distortion would conclude that it was so.
Your problem is this. You keep stating that the Second Amendment applies to States and not individuals, yet this requires that Article I Section 10 of the Constitution is no longer valid.
Since you seem incapable of actually finding a copy of the Constitution, here’s a link to the official version.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Notice, the article in question has not been rescinded.
Now, if he Second Amendment prevents the Federal government from interfering with State Militias, please explain how this is protection works when States can only keep troops with the permission of the Congress.
Your argument is that if Congress allows the States to keep troops in peacetime, then Congress can’t infringe on the Militias right to keep and bear arms. That’s inherently contradictory.
“In the meantime, I'm only interested in what the courts say,”
No, you are interested in what you want the Courts to say, not what they actually say.
-
WeikuBoy , lying about Miller does not make it true
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Xanthro, for the last time, I'm not interested in your argument. "
----------------
WeikuBoy, that's because you have no counter for it and you would rather slavishly repeat your tired old argument that Miller decision indicates that 2A protection is not an individual right.
============================
"I'm concerned with what the courts actually have said, not what you or the NRA think they should say."
------------------------------
No, as usual, you simply lie about what court decisions actually state. The first time could have been simple ignorance, but you can longer fall back on that protection once your error has been pointed out.
In Miller, it is the firearm in question that must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
You keep trying to hide the fact that the status of the firearm is central to the ruling and not whether or not it's an individual right.
If you can get them to sign off on your tortured argument about "troops" and "militias" and reverse Miller and invalidate part or all of the 2A, then go for it; you'll no doubt be a hero to insecure gun nuts throughout the red states. Until then, this is the law of the land:
===========================
"I'm still waiting for the "hundreds" if not "thousands" of "contrary" 2A decisions I've been promised."
---------------------------
Since I never promised hundreds or thousands of contrary 2A decisions, the above is just another of your straw man arguments. You like staking out positions for others that they have not taken. There are only a few score binding decisions that even tangentially touch on 2A rights.
=============================
"In the meantime, I'm not a grammar Nazi, but it is annoying to have to spend extra time re-reading things because the writer cannot write clearly or spell correctly."
--------------------------------
Seriously, extra time re-reading affect and effect. It took you more time to point out the wrong key was hit than it took you to re-read it. This isn't a class room it's a message board, and the level of spelling or grammar errors has been relatively small, yet you've gone out of your way to point each out. That's being a grammar Nazi. Can't refute an argument, attack the grammar.
-
Typical Conspiracy Kernel of Truth
[Read the article: Right-wing blogs discover massive conspiracy to hide WMDs in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, there is a kernel of truth is the statement. No, weapons of mass destruction were not found nor were they there.
What happened was a number of underground bunkers, most fully known before the beginning of hostilities, were not secured by American forces, despite the pleading of leading elements on the ground. These bunkers contained large numbers of artillery rounds, small arms and ammunition and explosives.
Many of the neighboring Iraqis truly believed there were weapons of mass destruction contained in these bunkers, because that’s what they had been told. Most of the bunkers were quickly inspected for WMD but not secured.
This administration was so preoccupied with finding WMDs that the basic task of securing munitions from falling into the hands of insurgent forces was neglected.
Our soldiers are now playing the price in terms of IED made from the cache located within these bunkers, and the Administration is embarrassed and tries to cover up its incompetence.
Like all conspiracies, this one takes a small element of truth out of context in order to justify its conclusion.
-
U.S. v. Emerson,
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As you know, U.S. v. Emerson is not binding nor the law of the land, hence though it supports the conclusion of the Second Amendment being an individual right, I do not cite nor use if as support.
If it were appealed to the Supreme Court and became precedent for the nation, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
There are many local and even appellate decisions that both support and refute the standard interpretation.
There is a shortage of Supreme Court decisions, and you've consistently mis-quoted Miller, one of the major decisions.