I am tired of most pro-gun arguments

nobody is talking about forms of private property. I'm talking specifically about arms, which the individual has a right to keep and bear, totally unconnected with any militia service, via the second amendment. your argument is refuted.

I've already rebutted your argument. I directly refuted it with SCOTUS precedent. I have no obligation to address or refute strawmen arguments you have made up and attributed to me. I will simply point them out.

 

While the SCOTUS has determined that All People have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the purpose of self-defence it can also be noted that the State Constitutions of every State where I've read them establishes that all adult males, with certain age restrtictions such as 18-45, are the "militia' of the State and subject to a call for service at any time.

I would argue that the 14th Amendment would also imply that all women are also a part of the State militia as well under the equal protection clause that would prohibit discrimination based upon gender.

What I find interesting is that most people ignore historical precedent. In December of 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and would have invaded the United States except for one compelling reason. It wasn't the US militiary that prevented that invasion but the fact that the American People are armed and dangerous. Our military, as stong as it is, can be defeated but our armed population cannot be defeated. The movie "Red Dawn" although fictional is based upon a fundamental fact. Because Americans are armed they are dangerous and we cannot be defeated by a foreign army of occupation. The armed Americans are ultimate protection against the tyranny of any government and all governments will ultimately become tyrannical if the people are not more powerful than the government.

 

Arms for persons, specifically unconnected with militia service, are forms of private property. You cannot deny or disparage that contention.

 

What a coincidence, most State Constitutions also specifically enumerate, the same thing; but they call such rights, inalienable or indefeasible.

The point is that only Individual persons, specifically connected with militia service, are exempted from State laws regarding gun control via the traditional police power of a State, while persons specifically unconnected with militia service, are not.

Only a well regulated militia (of the United States) is specifically exempted from the police power restrictions meant for every civil and Individual Person, who is specifically, unconnected with militia service.

 

This has nothing to do with my post or argument.

 

strawman

 

You say you don't want any gun links, but studies have shown that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does make for less crime. Why are you the expert now, and just ignore these facts.

It also sounds like you are making fun of our founding fathers and our Second Amendment. Is that the case?

 

Anyone who writes like this....

Is trying to make fun of you tho in fact they're making fun of their own capacity for reasoned discussion.

As for the part in bold..

A gun in my hands, if I'd had one, would have prevented a serious crime against myself.

The most likely outcome would be, they go away, nobody hurt.

If someone was such a fool as to rush a .38 revolver, well, there'd be a dead fool.

Someone who isnt weaker than a man, and isnt a target for sexual assault is not in a position to decide for me what I need.

Well, now Im living where its not an issue, no guns allowed.

Americans who dont understand and wish to fight against their own freedoms, rights and responsibilities are basically licking the chains of tyranny.

 

I can walk around packing as many concealed, or open carry, weapons as I can carry. If I do not see someone gunning for me FIRST and get "the-draw-on-them" before they start shooting, all the SELF DEFENSE weapons I am carrying will only serve to help bring me down! Guns in your home are useless for self defense unless you have some magic way to gain "prior knowledge" of the fact that a person, or persons, are going to come into your home to rob you at gunpoint, or to just straight shoot you with killing you as the plan. So unless you have psychic skills that give you "advance notice", having a gun, or guns, for protection, or "self defense", is a falsehood that has a very high probably of being true! Statistics that cannot be disputed, show that a gun or guns in the home has/have a 43% chance of being used to accidentally, or on purpose, wound or kill someone in the household. Use of a firearm is the method of choice for committing suicide. People with clinical and/or situational depression [like our soldiers] are susceptible to this. You blindside the results of strict gun control results in other "Civilized" countries.

 

Nobody ever mentions the 2, 5000,000 times each year a crime is thwarted by a gun in the U.S., other than police.

How am I fighting agsainst my freedoms, rights, etc. by wishing to maintain them?

Where are you from anyway?

 

I wish I could have been one of those 2.5 million, but I did not have a gun.

I did not say you were fighting against your own freedoms. Please read again!

I lived in the USA from '96 till November of this year. Now I am back in Hong Kong. Why do you ask?

 

OK, I stand corrected.

The folks that are so willing to give up things so easily, are indeed giving in to tyranny.

Just curious.

 

And other studies show the contrary. I prefer relying on my own research and not regurgitating what the NRA tells me to.

Guns =/= crime

 

It has to do with your special pleading usage of the ruling you claim, allegedly secures property rights which specifically includes the class called, Arms; since, that very same ruling claims you are incorrect in your assumption, by Tradition.

 

you have no idea what special pleading means. nowhere in that ruling does it claim I am incorrect. the second amendment nor the supreme courts ruling "allegedly" does anything. It's a matter of US law and now precedent that the second amendments meaning, as it pertains to the individual, is that the individuals right to keep and bear arms is in no way tied to nor dependant upon any militia. your argument remains refuted.

and your strawmen have no effect on my argument.

 

Projecting much? That same ruling claims you are incorrect, by Tradition.

 

Here is what rights in private property which may include Arms, look like:

 

the ruling does no such thing. It specifically spells out the second amendments meaning, as it pertains to the individual. your argument remains refuted.


and your strawmen have no effect on my argument.

 

nobody is talking about rights to private property which may include arms, nor is anyone talking about state constitutions. I am talking specifically about arms, and the second amendments meaning as it pertains to the individual.

your strawmen have no effect on my argument.

 

It is no strawman since most people don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment; therefore, my interpretation must be more correct since it is more consistent and therefore, more sound.

 

it is of course a strawman. and it's entirely irrelevant what "most people" believe. only the law matters. and it's settled law that the second amendments meaning, as it pertains to the individual, that the individuals right to keep and bear arms is in no way tied to nor dependant upon any militia. your argument remains refuted.

your strawmen have no effect on my argument.

 

Only the truth matters. The law is often wrong.

 

Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment? If not, then why continue resorting to fallacy for your Cause?

 

I haven't resorted to any fallacy. I directly refuted your argument with supreme court precdedent.

 

did you have some point you wished to make?