Guns: how much longer will it take ....

This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons” is merely an assertion of opinion.

InfraBlue wrote:

One thing is protecting the right of people to have any gun that there is no justification for prohibiting; another thing is the opinion that there is no justification for outlawing pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks.

Correct that they are two different things.

You were right to agree with both of them.

InfraBlue wrote:

No it’s not. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 was judged to be constitutional.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

Incidentally, appeals to authority are logical fallacies. Even if the Supreme Court had ruled that way, referring to their ruling would be no substitution for a sound logical argument as to why it is actually so.

InfraBlue wrote:

That the Supreme Court never has ruled on the constitutionality of The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 does not make The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 unconstitutional.

True. But it does undermine your claim about it having been ruled as Constitutional.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Not that it would mean anything even if they had made such a ruling in the past (note how little Roe v Wade meant to the current court).

Until that happens The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 is constitutional.

That is incorrect. There is no such previous ruling to be overturned, as the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

InfraBlue wrote:

This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons” is merely an assertion of opinion.

That is incorrect. The Virginia Ratifying Convention proposed the Second Amendment to address fears that were raised when they were debating the Constitution.

The US government adopted the Second Amendment to address those same fears.

What the Virginia Ratifying Convention was afraid of was that the federal government would abuse it's power by preventing the militia from having arms sufficient to carry out their duties.

What do you think those words "security of a free state" were referring to in the text of the Second Amendment if not the militia defending the nation from those who would harm it?

Ok.

True; this is an argument about the constitutionality of a law, however, points about which largely have nothing to do with logical arguments.

Wrong. Wrong; the rulings are from the lower courts which the Supreme Court has not overturned.

Wrong.

This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons” is merely an assertion of opinion.

"As well as the right to keep them at home," is also an assertion of opinion.

This is an assertion of opinion, as well.

Ditto.

"Security of a free state" isn't the assertion you made that I'm negating.

I'm negating the assertion you made that, "militiamen will have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home." You are assuming reasons for this assertion, e.g. "The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to address their concerns that a tyrannical government would try to prevent the militia from being adequately armed,"

and, "what the Virginia Ratifying Convention was afraid of was that the federal government would abuse it's power by preventing the militia from having arms sufficient to carry out their duties."

That's not a fact. Recorded history is not an assertion of opinion.

Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States -- reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither -- this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.

the people have a right to keep and bear arms

a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

We know for a fact what Patrick Henry had to say at the Virginia Ratifying Convention because his speech there was transcribed for posterity.

InfraBlue wrote:

Ok.

Note that if it is unconstitutional to outlaw a gun that there is no justification for outlawing, and if there is no justification for outlawing pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks, then that means that laws against pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks are unconstitutional.

InfraBlue wrote:

True; this is an argument about the constitutionality of a law, however, points about which largely have nothing to do with logical arguments.

That is incorrect. Logic applies just as much to legal arguments as it does to any other subject matter.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong. Wrong; the rulings are from the lower courts which the Supreme Court has not overturned.

An appeal to a very low authority is still an appeal to authority. Let me know when you can back your assertions up with facts and logic instead of with logical fallacies.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong.

That is incorrect. The Virginia Ratifying Convention proposed the Second Amendment to address fears that were raised when they were debating the Constitution.

InfraBlue wrote:

This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons” is merely an assertion of opinion.

That's not a fact. Recorded history is not an assertion of opinion.

And recorded history shows that the Anti-Federalists proposed the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) to address fears that they had about the new government.

Recorded history also shows that the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was adopted by the federal government to address the fears that were raised by the Anti-Federalists.

InfraBlue wrote:

"As well as the right to keep them at home," is also an assertion of opinion.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment says that the people have the right to KEEP their arms. That is contrary to the arms being kept by the government.

InfraBlue wrote:

This is an assertion of opinion, as well.

That is incorrect. Recorded history shows that the federal government adopted the Bill of Rights in order to address the fears that had been raised by the Anti-Federalists.

InfraBlue wrote:

Ditto.

That is incorrect. Recorded history shows that what the Virginia Ratifying Convention was afraid of was that the federal government would abuse it's power by preventing the militia from having arms sufficient to carry out their duties.

InfraBlue wrote:

"Security of a free state" isn't the assertion you made that I'm negating.

Correct. "Security of a Free State" is a part of the text of the Second Amendment that I referred to in support of my statement that you are attempting to negate.

What do you think those words "security of a free state" were referring to in the text of the Second Amendment if not the militia defending the nation from those who would harm it?

InfraBlue wrote:

I'm negating the assertion you made that, "militiamen will have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home." You are assuming reasons for this assertion, e.g. "The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to address their concerns that a tyrannical government would try to prevent the militia from being adequately armed,"

That is incorrect. Recorded history is very clear on the fact that the Anti-Federalists proposed the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) to address their fears of the federal government.

Recorded history is also very clear on the fact that the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was adopted for the purpose of addressing those fears.

InfraBlue wrote:

and, "what the Virginia Ratifying Convention was afraid of was that the federal government would abuse it's power by preventing the militia from having arms sufficient to carry out their duties."

That is incorrect. Patrick Henry's speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention made it very clear that this was an issue of concern.

In relation to some of your assertions, I've read that all the militias were government run. Of course, that was only from one site, and your politics over there make such things a quagmire.

Wrong. You are making a false conclusion. One thing is the constitutionality of outlawing a gun that there is no justification for outlawing, another thing is the justification for outlawing pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks.

Wrong. Arguments about laws are largely judgement calls, especially when laws are vague and ambiguous. Arguments about specific laws arise precisely because of their vagueness and ambiguity.

You're not keeping up with the argument. I responded to this that you wrote, "There is no such previous ruling to be overturned, as the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue."

Wrong. This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons” is merely an assertion of opinion.

"As well as the right to keep them at home," is also an assertion of opinion.

Yes it is.

One thing is recorded history, another thing is your interpretation of it, and the conclusions you draw from your interpretation of it.

oralloy wrote:

Recorded history shows that the Anti-Federalists proposed the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) to address fears that they had about the new government.

Recorded history also shows that the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was adopted by the federal government to address the fears that were raised by the Anti-Federalists.

Ok.

That is merely your interpretation of what the Second Amendment says.

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. Recorded history shows that what the Virginia Ratifying Convention was afraid of was that the federal government would abuse it's power by preventing the militia from having arms sufficient to carry out their duties.

No it's not. This is an assertion of opinion, as well.

Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States -- reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither -- this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.

What I think it means is irrelevant to the fact that your statement that "that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons" is merely an assertion of what you think it means.

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. Patrick Henry's speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention made it very clear that this was an issue of concern.

No it's not. This is merely an assertion of your interpretations of recorded history.

Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States -- reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither -- this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.