I initially didn't address that point at all, and focused instead on the points that I saw as relevant.
But Parados raised the issue again and complained about me ignoring it.
That's not true. You raised the English Bill of Rights first, before Parados
responded to anything you wrote in this thread. Here's what you wrote
The right was created in 1689.
And you subsequently referred to the English Bill of Rights several times thereafter. So the point is clearly relevant to your argument. Indeed, when Parados
asked you if you were referring to the English Bill of Rights as the source of the right to bear arms, you said
Of course I am.
In response, Parados
correctly noted that the right created in 1689 was quite limited, to the point that it could hardly be called a "right" at all. That's when you said it didn't matter if he was correct. But it most certainly does
matter. If Parados
is correct, then your entire argument falls apart, since you are basing the American right to bear arms on the English Bill of Rights. If the EBR didn't create the right, though, there was no common-law right to be transferred to the US in 1776.
Your response to Parados
, then, amounts to: "I'm not convinced that you're criticism of my position is right, but even if it is, it doesn't matter, because I'm still right." Can you see why that might not be a convincing argument?