I am pro-gun - ask me anything...

I've never needed a fire extinguisher or smoke alarm to protect myself, yet I still own them. I don't know anybody who's house has caught fire where the smoke alarm would have alerted them.

 

The SCOTUS disagrees.

 

No, they didn't. See my post above.

 

Not so.
The AR platform, as commercially produced, is capable of sub-MOA accuracy at ranges out to 1000yds. Not so the Mini-14 platform.
The AR platform is also available in a far wider range of calibers for a far wider range of applications.
The two are thusly not, for intents and purposes, interchangeable.

 

This would be an interesting discussion. How unfortunate that your only argument is an ad-hominem. That I either didn't finish High School, or I haven't Googled.... something... It's unfortunate because you force me to address the ad hominem, taking time (and space) that could be spent on an interesting topic. So let's address it then. I will share with you the opinion of a well known linguist, PhD from the University of Michigan and Linguistics Professor at the University of Illinois. And he even taught, early in his career, that course in High School which you so highly appreciate. And the only reason I mention this is that you keep questioning my High School degree (instead of my arguments). And I mention Dennis Baron only because I met him personally, when he was in the PhD Program at U of M, as he was one of my dad's students in his postgraduate Linguistics program. But I can, of course, produce many similar opinions that you can verify. Here it is http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

Ok... Hopefully that will put to rest any ad hominem argument about my education being a factor in this discussion.

Now, apart from the ad hominem, you are just repeating the NRA's position which was very successful at the SCOTUS. I am not bashing the NRA. Or even rebutting their position. I'm just saying that it's the only thing you're doing (and attempting to preempt a strawman similar to "you just say this because you hate the NRA").

However, you fail to even address (much less rebut) the fact that it's not the only possible position, as reading Dr Baron's paper (and I can supply others) will demonstrate. But I am not holding Dr. Baron's position either. Because only a linguist could effectively argue that position. And I'm not a linguist. Which doesn't mean I don't understand it (anybody with preparation a bit over high-school level could). Just that I don't have the academic background to actually defend it. So I'm just stating that the opinion exists among full fledged linguists, and that I'm not just making it up. Nothing more, nothing less.

The one thing you fail (or refuse) to understand is that there is no "rule" in English grammar that states that all sentences constructed the same way as the 2nd Amendment consist of an independent unlinked Prefatory Clause independent of an Operative Clause. That is one interpretation. But grammar is not about semantics (although obviously it influences it), but about the structure of the phrase. How it's constructed, not what it means. To explain what it means, grammar is one of many factors. But logic and context play an even more important role. And, to support my position, I gave you examples of phrases that are similarly built, but are obviously not composed as independent un-linked Prefatory plus Operative Clauses. You failed to even address my examples. Here they are again.

"The class being complete, the students shall leave the room"

"Discipline being necessary, the child shall be spanked"

In these phrases, the context and logic dictates that there is a clear cause and effect relation of the first part with the main clause. I know that this is not so clear in the 2nd Amendment, so you don't need to point that out. There, context and logic may or may not dictate that the second clause is dependent (though most linguists I've seen think that it is) so I'm just not arguing that. My only position is that it is not clear. by the text. If we can agree on that (and on that my High School education is irrelevant.... though I do hold a College Degree... but that's also irrelevant) the we will have made a huge stride forward.

If not, you will have to show (and not just attack me personally) either how those phrases are constructed differently from the text of the 2nd Amendment, or that the first clause is merely prefatory, unlinked, and that the second clause is not dependent of it.

Whether I understand it or not is irrelevant (another ad hominem). What the context of the time implies it means is another.

I don't think "well-regulated" is that much of an issue. Even though I know the arguments on both sides. The terms "Bear arms" and "militia" are more relevant to whether there is an individual right to guns or not.

But I'm not interested in dissecting the Amendment piece by piece. I am only arguing that it's unclear and ambiguous. And that if the framers had wanted to make it clear and unambiguous, they could have done that easily. So it would appear to me like they didn't actually want that. And I'm left wondering why. I have my hypothesis, but not enough arguments to support it.... yet.

 

You make this statement knowing fully well it is false.

 

There's no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons', regardless of how broad you define the term.

 

Under existing laws, possibly. My statement, however, remains true.

 

No. A license is registration under another name. And history shows that a license is just the door to a de facto gun ban - read "Emily Gets A Gun", or research the bizarre process required to get a permit in NYC.

Or research the history in the USA of "may issue" versus "shall issue". Under "may issue", the local govt had the final decision in determining whether a firearm permit would be issued, the idea was sold to people under the guise of public safety (we need a final check so a criminal or mentally unstable person doesn't get a gun - sounds just like all the current gun control arguments, doesn't it?). In reality, no matter what justification a person had she could not convince the govt that she needed a fiream - "may issue" was a de facto ban.

That's why in the 1980's there was the national push to "shall issue". And of course the result proved the gun banners wrong - many people got permits, and crime decreased >50%.

That's what Canadians who wanted the long gun registry claimed in order to get it passed. Read the linked Forbes article (in the post you responded to), such registries have met with failure in multiple nations. The facts are that long guns are not a weapon of choice for criminals, long guns are a trivial weapon in crime (FBI Uniform Crime Reports Table 20).

 

I stated a fact, you did not like it, but were too lazy to take the time to research it.

I'm getting your measure now. You post question after question, and you are beginning to repeat yourself, yet I have not seen one post from you that shows any research or link. You spend little time on the subject, you repeat your entrenched position, and ignore any facts to the contrary. We've seen your type before.

 

My first firearm purchase was a Springfield M1A Supermatch.

 

Congrats and good luck with your career.

 

So the law can seem to have over riding circumstances to certain types of defense.
I guess that's why after 250+ years, we still have this discussion.

 

The use of the word 'probably', means it's open to interpretation. And it seems each group has their own interpretation. And then the USSC will determine who is or is not correct per their interpretation of the constitution. Yes?

 

No, what you're doing is grasping at straws and avoiding the real argument with as much effort as you can muster.

Putting land mines on your property puts anyone who comes onto your property at risk. A landmine is not under your control, and is indiscriminate in it's usage.

An explosive, such as a grenade, that can be used in active self defense, can be owned.

Landmines are covered in the Ottawa agreement, where entire countries are no longer using them.

Your example is ludicrous, and simply an attempt to drag the conversation away from the core discussion.

You clearly do not want to deal in facts presented, even going so far as to refuse to read documents from our founders regarding firearm ownership.

It doesn't seem you're interested in an honest debate.

 

We have clear and convincing evidence by the founders of our country on firearms ownership left to us in their writings and communications before, during and after ratification of the Constitution.

You just don't want to look at that information.

 

Then WAN shouldn't have used 'probably'. As that is what I was responding to. Did you let her know?
Letting me know serves no purpose.

 

I agree. Letting you know serves no purpose. You've already refused to even examine presented evidence on the founders intent for the 2A.

I don't post for your benefit, I post for the benefit of those who might fall prey to your ridiculous arguments.

 

Do you support the right of business owners to decide whether or not to allow guns on their property?

I know that bars in Indiana are actually required to either turn anyone carrying a gun away, or to have a special security room where guns can be checked before entering.

I also know that in many states that allow open carry, gun owners will carry AR-15's and other non-concealed, non-handgun weapons into restaurants and other businesses.

I recall someone posting that businesses are not private property, but public property, and have no right to turn people away. I'm sure that there are alpt of people on the right who feel this way when it comes to guns. However, I am also sure that 99% of them will do a complete 180 when it comes to businesses turning away anything or anyone they don't like. For example, gay couples. On one issue a business is considered a public place with the owner being prohibited from turning someone away, and on the other it is considered the private property of the owner with them being allowed to pick an choose who and what is allowed on their property.

 

Yup. They can post a sign.

I also support the right of Jewish bakers to refuse a customer's request to bake a cake to celebrate Hitler's birthday.

 

Open to the public means exactly that. Unless a customer is doing something that interferes with said business they have no basis to ask you to leave for trespass.

 

I would consider allowing a jewish business owner to turn away a blatantly anti-Semite request to be common sense, since the only purpose of such as request is to cause mental anguish to the business owner, and there is clearly malicious intent on behalf of the customer.

 

So, what would you consider to be interferes with the business? Many conservatives claim that a business owner should have the right to refuse customers simply because they are gay. Do you agree with that?

 

No, and I don't think that was the argument as presented.

The argument was that the business owners didn't want to bake a cake on religious grounds.

It's a bit more complicated than what you're presenting but I'll give it a go.

A small business where the owners are also the employees is not the same as, say, a corporation.

Clearly in that case there is a valid argument of asking a business owner to do something against their religion.

Let's say you're a male stripper. Could you refuse to strip for gay men or could you be sued for that?

That's quite different than just refusing to cater to gay customers based purely on their sexual orientation with no actual religious reasons (i.e. you are simply claiming to be religious with no evidence of that religion in other areas of your life).