Fine, I’ll take it that you were not trying to say that the NRA had no test, no standards, nothing when it came to the 2nd Amendment.

You still have yet to explain your other comment saying the NRA ignored the “well regulated” clause.

If you don’t want to play the semantics game then don’t come in here with false semantics.

On top of that, if you don’t have time to clarify what you were saying, don’t pretend like you then have time to be indignant about our not answering a question you pose.

Good Bye.

And in all your rants I could find here, I don’t see any indication of what you regard as the proper contours of regulating arms, even under an NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.

As you can plainly can see, I was commenting that I couldn’t find anywhere where GMC had laid out his view of what standards would apply to regulating arms under the Second Amendment.

And you accuse me of rhetorical tactics? I’ll generously assume you just read it wrong.

But I’ve got better things to do with my time than play this silly little back-and-forth game of yours.

I’m outta here.

“I don’t see any indication of what you regard as the proper contours of regulating arms, even under an NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”

What did you mean by posting:

“NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”

I can read just fine.

I won’t answer the question, because that would be simply ignoring the fact that your argument is based on a bunch of crap to begin with.

It is very typical debate style. You throw in a bunch of false premises in front of your question and then act indignant when I get hung up on addressing those false premises.

Sorry, I don’t play that game.

You still have one assertion left to take back or attempt to prove:

““NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”

Which is also blatantly false.

I wasn’t even talking about the NRA.
Learn how to read.

First you go from saying the fact sheet ignored the clause to now posting a paragraph where they didn’t.

So, either way, you were wrong when you said that the NRA simply ignores the militia clause.

Now, that particular sheet might not clearly identify what the NRA thinks “well regulated” should mean, but that is an entirely different issue now.

That fact sheet could hardly be argued to be the ONLY piece of opinion information by the NRA.

So trying to claim that simply because that particular fact sheet doesn’t clearly describe what the NRA thinks about what “well regulated” should mean doesn’t prove anything about your claim that the NRA simply ignores that clause.

“This guarantees a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern — the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government.”

No mention–or acknowledgment–of what “well-regulated” meant.

You never did say.

What threats to your person do you imagine need dealing with at a range of 100 yards?

Nut.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=177

After you aknowledge the strawman arguments and crap you posted about the NRA and the 2nd Amendment, then we can try to move onto a sensible discussion.

Before that, why should I answer your question?

You have shown no ability to be reasonable yet.

It’s a fair question. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.

First of all, when you simply take the words “well regulated” from the second amendment you are forgetting what they were addressing:

Militia.

“A well regulated Militia” is the context.

So when you simply pull out “well regulated” and then try to say that it applies to individual gun ownership you are taking the words out of their context.

MonkeyHawks argument was not about asking where the line was drawn. His argument was about being absurd.

If you believe his argument is so sound, then lets hear your reasoning.

MonkeyHawk starts with a false premise that somehow the NRA types don’t think there are any reasonable regulations thus prisoners should have guns too.

Then you have CapnAmerica saying that if prisoners shouldn’t have guns then we should be banning a multitude of other weapons and people from owning them.

The leaps of logic are astounding and without any given reasoning at all.

Then you continue on with the ignorance in saying:

“NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”

Which is also blatantly false.

And then this:

“and, if one ignores the inconvenient militia clause (as NRA types repeatedly do)”

Which is blatantly false.

Both you and MonkeyHawk have to start with a strawman of what the NRA’s stance is and then jump to a completely absurd argument and then you sit here acting indignant because GMC70 is not answering your question.

Why don’t you start by not totally mischaracterizing those you are arguing against in asking your questions and then you might get an answer.

Or a half dozen other subjects?

But boy get him going on guns and suddenly the ATF is under his bed, in his closets, and coming down the chimney!

Just when has the slope NOT been slippery?

Even if true, that doesn’t answer my question. The remedy for “liberals” already exists–it’s called elections. And in all your rants I could find here, I don’t see any indication of what you regard as the proper contours of regulating arms, even under an NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.

If he (or you) do not understand the principles of liberties restricted following due process of law, you are farther gone than I would imagine.

Actually, prisoners have plenty of unalienable rights (such as First Amendment protections) under the Constitution, and, if one ignores the inconvenient militia clause (as NRA types repeatedly do), the Second Amendment is written in more absolutist terms than the First! The Fourth Amendment takes a beating in prison, of course, as “reasonable” searches are allowed, and it operates specifically in a law-enforcement context.

. . .but I digress, as you were hoping for, no doubt, to avoid the real issue. No dice. Answer my question: What exactly is reasonable regulation of arms, by your reckoning, under the most generous interpretation of the Second Amendment? You can rant endlessly about laws you don’t like, but, unless you support having a rocket launcher in every backyard, you have to have some type of Constitutional standard for regulation.

Incidently, the DC case (Heller, was it?), provides no coherent guidance in that matter either (no surprise, given the judges involved).

Just when has the slope NOT been slippery? The entire history of firearms regulation has been a slippery slope, and for the most part running one way. Indeed, all of government is little but a slippery slope; governments ALWAYS assume more power, and NEVER give it up willingly. Once assumed, a larger gov’t will NEVER get small or less intrusive. Gov’t IS a slippery slope, my friend.

And this subject certainly fits that trend.

BTW - MH’s argument is not “reducto ad absurdum,” it was just plain absurd. We both know it, of course. If he (or you) do not understand the principles of liberties restricted following due process of law, you are farther gone than I would imagine.

Internet - gone
Email - gone
TV - gone
Radio - gone

Talk, write a letter, paper flyer, or publish a newspaper.

. .rest of rant snip. . .

P.S. If anyone sees the above questions as attacks on anyone’s rights, I would suggest an Evelyn Wood course. :roll:

And then from there to banning evil “assault rifles;” after all, that’s only a “reasonable regulation” only a NRAddled mind could oppose. That person must be crazy; he should be barred from owning weapons immediately. Then it’s only a short step to banning all semi-automatic firearms; after all, they’re only designed to kill. It’s for the children.

The next logical “reasonable regulation” will be those those horrible “sniper rifles” (re: grandpa’s 30-06, kiddies). And then those weapons of mass carnage, shotguns, which do so much damage when they are used.

Of course, it will be necessary to bar knives, too. And icepicks. For the children, of course.

And with the State having a monopoly on weaponry, maintaining a proper modicum of control will be no effort at all. Just get in line, and do what you’re told, kiddies. 2nd Amendment? It’s a dead letter, doesn’t apply anymore. Remember, we have a LIVING Constitution, it doesn’t mean what it says, it means what we say it says. And with the pesky 2nd amendment out of the way, just imagine what we can do to get rid of that pesky 1st amendment . . . . can’t have those pesky subjects - er, I mean citizens - criticizing the State willy-nilly. It might cause unrest. Children might be hurt.

Thanks to you, Herr Capitan; or perhaps I should say Herr Kapitan. Seig Heil! I Love Big Brother. . . .

Nice, huh? And it all is wrapped up in the code words “reasonable regulation.”

is a Brady Center-created myth. It doesn’t exist.

Maybe in your mind it is a short step, but logically speaking you are taking a superman leap to try and say that not arming criminals in a prison thus proves we should do any of the things you just listed.

Nevermind that you never responded to my comment earlier on your fallacious logic…

But please, feel free to idolize MonkeyHawk some more.

You did that Blog community a great service by posting your question.

The NRAddicts have had to admit that sometimes guns do not solve problems and actually make problems worse: in the hands of convicted criminals for example.

This is an excellent start. It’s now just a short step to “people shouldn’t have .50 caliber armor piercing rifles that can bring down airliners.” And from there to “gun powder should have traceable taggants” and handguns and rifles should be “barrel fingerprinted.”

Max lives in effing IOWA.

I don’t know why he plays coy on that point.

Probably because no one wants to admit they voluntarilly live in Iowa.