Philadelphia Open Carry

Off Topic
188

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Push, I have now reviewed the 2nd Amendment and the two Supreme Court cases interpreting it. First, it is unclear (and doubtful to me) that the 2nd Amendment is a broad, unfettered individual right…to “bear arms” - including the right to walk around in polite society carrying a sidearm… [/quote]

If you want to be intellectually honest you have no other choice.

The 2nd states the “right to ‘keep’” - that would be own or possess - AND the “right to bear” - that would be carry. No amount of mental gymnastics SHOULD allow a prudent man to argue that point(s).

Now if you claim the right is not broad and unfettered then I suggest you do the same with speech, worship, petition, assembly, the press, etc. If you see massive amounts of latitude with those rights and very limited latitude with weapons then you are pursuing an agenda to twist and pervert the 2nd into something you WANT it to mean but not what it actually DOES mean.
[/quote]

Some pretty smart men and women of the Supreme Court don’t seem to agree with you. In addition, there are others that disagree with your interpretation as well. Are we all being “intellectually dishonest”?

Do you have any special training in Constitutional law? Do you have a legal background? Or, are you spitballing here? Honest questions.

189

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

… Since the “militia” is our present day military, we do not have such “militias” any longer…

[/quote]

You are in error. Your research will show you the militia was EVERY available man.[/quote]

Assuming you are correct, where is there a practical place for such a “militia” today? There are no militias today. Nor will there be unless there is some catastrophic breakdown of our government and military.

190

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…In addition to the above, you still didn’t address my questions about felon and mentally ill gun ownership. And while we’re at it, what about age restrictions?[/quote]

I DID answer those questions. Maybe it was in an oblique fashion but you’re intelligent enough to have figured it out.

Seeeeeeeeeee:

[quote]push wrote:

Take the case of the felon you mentioned. Does the felon retain his right when he enters prison to peaceable assemble? Vote? Be free from warrantless searches? No, of course not. So, sure, rights can be taken away from a guilty man - one CAN be properly stripped of his rights by the judicial system. [/quote]

Then I asked you to define “mentally unstable” so I could answer you. I now see you have changed “unstable” to “ill.” So define both terms. Does mentally unstable include anyone who has ever been on anti-depressants? Drank alcohol to excess to console a wounded spirit? Or someone who has been committed to a mental health institution? I could run you a list as long as this page.[/quote]

You’re playing word games. Felons and mentally ill or not? Explain why or why not. You seem to want to be stuck on semantics when it suits your argument (define mentally ill), but you don’t want to be bothered with such technicalities when it comes to legal interpretations such as “right to bear”.

I’ll ask you again; do you have a background in law, particularly Constitutional law? Or, are you spitballing? Because I’ve seen plenty a “spitballer” talk about how taxes are illegal, and people like Wesley Snipes are in jail for following their “legal advice”.

191

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…I think it’s very clear that to bear arms in public (CCP and OCP alike) IS a privilege.

[/quote]

Well, to get to that conclusion you HAVE to do a whole bunch of contortin’.[/quote]

No you don’t. All you have to do is be “intellectually honest” and answer my question about felons and mentally ill. From there, it logically flows that to CCP or OCP IS a privilege. By logical default, you must be arguing for the right of the felon and mentally ill to “bear arms”. If that’s the case, then we agree to disagree and no further discussion is necessary. And by the way, look at any form for a gun permit and that will begin to tell you about mental illness. It’s something that is reviewed. We both know it can’t be defined in a vacuum. I think you’re being intellectually dishonest.

Also, if you want to have an earnest discussion, stop cherry picking lines and responding piece by piece. That pretty much ensures we never actually discuss a point to its conclusion. It’s difficult enough to debate over a forum. You’re making it more difficult.

192

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Is that what you are arguing for? For every wingnut to be able to purchase and bear arms?..

[/quote]

Should every wingnut have the right to:

Worship

Speak

Publish a newspaper

Peaceably assemble

Petition the government

Avoid quartering of soldiers in their home

Be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

Be served a warrant if a search is deemed reasonable

Not to be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

To not be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

To not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

To not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

To not have his private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

To a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed

Not have excessive bail requirements, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

THB, now answer MY question, friend.[/quote]

You’re not answering MY question. Answer the question about felons and mentally ill. Once you do, we can discuss the above. I know where I’m going. And if you’re likening the right to worship with the right of someone to be an instrument of death, we have a fundamental disagreement. You’re being intellectually dishonest and you’d change your tune right after some “wingnut” shot up your child’s school.

193

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…the moment you put any regulatory hurdle in the way of gun ownership, you have created a “privilege” that is regulated. There is no way around it…

[/quote]

Bing-fucking-o.[/quote]

I don’t need a pat on the head from you; I understand the issues. Now answer my practical questions.

194

I’ll just say the Supreme Court has been wrong many times. Even by there own record.

195

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…If not, and I assume any reasonable person would not want to live in that world…?

[/quote]

Our society, including reasonable persons, lived in that world for many generations. In relative safety and harmony.

Gun control laws and regulations, rather than increase the public safety, have repeatedly been proven to actually reduce it. Past and present.[/quote]

Classic correlation / causation fallacy. Adjust this argument for the location. People walking around armed in Montana is not the same as walking around armed in a crowded City. I challenge you to spend a month in N. Philly, in the streets, and walk away with the opinion that everyone should be armed.

It’s a chicken / egg argument and you know it.

196

[quote]pushharder wrote:

GUN CONTROL POLICIES ONLY CONTROL THE INNOCENT AND LAW ABIDING. It’s that simple.[/quote]

And I don’t disagree with this. That does not mean the opposite is true. It doesn’t mean that letting everyone have guns is the answer. It’s just not. It’s a logical fallacy to assert otherwise.

197

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ll just say the Supreme Court has been wrong many times. Even by there own record.[/quote]

Exhausting you are. Law develops and doctrines change with the needs of society. The two decisions are from 1939 and 2008. And then there are Constitutional State issues to wrangle with. Have you done your research, or are you just expressing your personal feelings? Because if we’re expressing our personal feelings, I want the right to a CCP in NJ. So do we really disagree? Think about that before you continue your replies.

198

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…If not, and I assume any reasonable person would not want to live in that world…?

[/quote]

Our society, including reasonable persons, lived in that world for many generations. In relative safety and harmony.

Gun control laws and regulations, rather than increase the public safety, have repeatedly been proven to actually reduce it. Past and present.[/quote]

Classic correlation / causation fallacy. Adjust this argument for the location. People walking around armed in Montana is not the same as walking around armed in a crowded City. I challenge you to spend a month in N. Philly, in the streets, and walk away with the opinion that everyone should be armed.

It’s a chicken / egg argument and you know it. [/quote]

What if I came to the conclusion I wanted to be armed and I wouldn’t blame others for wanting to protect themselves either?

199

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…In addition to the above, you still didn’t address my questions about felon and mentally ill gun ownership. And while we’re at it, what about age restrictions?[/quote]

I DID answer those questions. Maybe it was in an oblique fashion but you’re intelligent enough to have figured it out.

Seeeeeeeeeee:

[quote]push wrote:

Take the case of the felon you mentioned. Does the felon retain his right when he enters prison to peaceable assemble? Vote? Be free from warrantless searches? No, of course not. So, sure, rights can be taken away from a guilty man - one CAN be properly stripped of his rights by the judicial system. [/quote]

Then I asked you to define “mentally unstable” so I could answer you. I now see you have changed “unstable” to “ill.” So define both terms. Does mentally unstable include anyone who has ever been on anti-depressants? Drank alcohol to excess to console a wounded spirit? Or someone who has been committed to a mental health institution? I could run you a list as long as this page.[/quote]

You’re playing word games. Felons and mentally ill or not? Explain why or why not. You seem to want to be stuck on semantics when it suits your argument (define mentally ill), but you don’t want to be bothered with such technicalities when it comes to legal interpretations such as “right to bear”.

I’ll ask you again; do you have a background in law, particularly Constitutional law? Or, are you spitballing? Because I’ve seen plenty a “spitballer” talk about how taxes are illegal, and people like Wesley Snipes are in jail for following their “legal advice”.[/quote]

While enjoying this rather spirited argument, with good work on both sides…I would have to point out BG that Push seem to answer your question quite clearly above.

/This is how a debate should be, not personal and well debated…fine work.