Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I have seen lists like that before, and they usually come from a gun propaganda site. I may be wrong in this case, however. May I ask how you came up with that list of quotes? Did you compile them yourself, or did you get them from a source?Quotes are just quotes....you'll note that I provided no commentary which could be called "spin".
I don't know about their accuracy or their context. They only represent a collection of statements from individuals, many of whom opposed ratification of the Constitution. I did back up my position with something other than quotes--reference to the Whiskey Rebellion and the two Militia Acts of 1792. Moreover, most of those quotes do not address the question of whether the Second was intended to secure a right for the purpose of militia duty, as the preamble to the Second suggests.Are you saying that the quotes are inaccurate? Or that they don't mean what they appear to mean?
I'm not going to get into a semantic debate over the definition of "assault weapon". Most people know that the weapon used by Holmes was intended to resemble the M-16, so it is legitimate to call it an assault weapon in an informal discussion such as this. It was a semi-automatic rifle that could be fitted with off-the-shelf large-capacity ammunition clips and modified to full auto with a kit. The same web sites that carp about the definition will still say that they oppose a ban on "assault weapons". It is nothing more than a fairly successful effort to blow smoke on the real issues.Let's bear in mind that your criticism cuts both ways. There are many anti-gun websites who spin things your way too, eg, calling non-assault weapons "assault weapons" in order to heighten the hysteria.
There were dissents in the ruling that prevailed, so I'm not the only one to take the position that the USSC changed precedent here. In any case, your entire argument is beside the point. You took issue with a different point that I think I defended rather well. Even under the expanded definition of the Second as a civilian right, there is nothing in the Second to suggest that weapons should be kept for the purpose of rebelling against government. As I pointed out--and you did not contradict--the militias have been used historically by state and federal governments against rebellion and insurrection. There is no precedent for interpreting the Second as endorsement of rebellion. Plenty of pro-gun demagogues out there have been saying the opposite, which can have dangerous consequences when drummed into people who are prone to extremist arguments (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).When it comes to constitutional law, the USSC carries some weight, but when they conflict with actual language of the Constitution & with apparent intent of the founders, I'll go with the latter. Besides, do you have some knowledge of the
2nd Amendment which is superior to the justices? (Gawd, that sounds snarky, but the question is compelling.)
I offered it. You did not discuss my reference to the Whiskey Rebellion as evidence of how the militias were used to suppress rebellions. Instead, you printed a bunch of quotes of uncertain origin and relevance that did not belie the history of how militias were used.What contrary evidence do you have to offer?
Last edited: