@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:Confusion indeed.
I have not confused Strict Scrutiny with any other standard. I am merely referring directly to Strict Scrutiny alone.
InfraBlue wrote:It hasn't been established that the Second Amendment was written in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.
Well, this is the first time that you've brought it up.
The Second Amendment was written to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Here are some past court cases that establish that the right to keep and bear arms includes private self defense:
Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."
Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."
Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."
InfraBlue wrote:That's merely your play on words. Seeing as how you cannot foretell the future, the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations.
That is incorrect. "Not yet having addressed an issue" is not "a refusal to take a given position".
InfraBlue wrote:Exactly, they didn't establish that the Second Amendment was written in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.
I never said that the McDonald ruling established that. Heller was the ruling that established that.
One of the things that the McDonald ruling did was cast four votes for Strict Scrutiny, with Thomas not being the fifth vote only because he was taking an even more hard line position.
InfraBlue wrote:Flawed indeed. Heller, in its sweeping reversal of precedent to separate a well regulated militia with individual right to posses a firearm, rationalized the virtual banning of automatic weapons, "machine guns," in regard to the militia.
Heller rationalized the virtual banning of machine guns for
private citizens. Heller did not even address the rights of people who are serving in a state militia. There are no flaws in my statements regarding the rights of
militiamen.
InfraBlue wrote:Your skirting of the point doesn't make you any less confused.
I did not skirt any point; I always address points head on. Nor am I confused about anything.
