TheLagerLad wrote:

.....“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment."

A leftist commentator makes a rare factually correct statement about the Constitution but in usual fashion, it is a product of misunderstanding rather than knowledge. 
 

Hi, Jeer.  I think you forgot to add, " No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation," to the quote you cited which was, "It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment."

I think that is the important point the author was making.

Goose wrote:

Goose wrote:

How about we return to the topic, the complete abandonment of the public interest by our elected officials on the issue of gun violence. Use colorful language if you like. These are important issues.

Goose wrote:

Could we please address the topic at hand?

Can we really? 

The history of discussing gun control here does not instill confidence. 

So tell me, is any debate welcome on the dangers of allowing one's inclusion on an arbitrary list to disable a constitutionally protected fundamental right?  A list where no probable cause exists to bring charges or even begin an investigation, a list where no standard exists to be placed on the list, where no notification is made that you are on the list and where no process exists to appeal and be removed from the list?  I would like to hear you explain your hostility for due process. 

The "argument" that just parrots "gun worshipers want terrorists to get guns" is fine for the echo chamber here, but the idea of using the terrorist watch list / no fly list to disable gun rights deserves an adult conversation.

Is any debate welcome on the actual protection criteria long established by SCOTUS that uses the arm's effectiveness in battle as a test of whether the possession and use of a gun by civilian's is protected? (Or as the NYT puts it, "weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war . . . ")
If prior attempts to discuss that are any indication, any examination of that is considered a diversion and unwelcome -- believe me, I understand why . . .

It is my opinion that the protection criteria established by SCOTUS means that any claims of government that it possesses the power to restrict the possession and use of "assault weapons" by private citizens, should be / will be repelled and/or invalidated.  I am able and eager to discuss why I think this and welcome your or anyone else's arguments that the NYT's proposal is constitutional.   

Goose wrote:

Welcome back, Jeer.
Hey, starting a gun thread is like putting up the Bat Signal.

I never left.  I lurk here nearly every day.

I have let a lot of ridiculous statements on guns here go without posting . . .  This thread, especially with the topic being precisely what I try to steer gun threads to, and seeing you just being you and being slapped down for it, was just too delicious to let pass by.

I do appreciate your welcome.  The board sure needs an adversarial voice.

Goose wrote:

Now I suppose we can look forward to a cliché fest substituting for the discussion we need to have.

I characterize the lean of commemorators, just like you do.  The difference between us is that for me I back it up with real argument explaining why the leftist (or right winger) is wrong . . . That part is ignored though and instead my characterization becomes the topic and the real points go unaddressed.  When you make those characterizations they fall into a void in an alternate universe where you escape the rules you apply to others.

We will see if reasoned discussion can be had, that is all I'm interested in, this childish banter about the assignment of political lean holds no appeal for me and if that's all your capable of them I'll resign right now.

Just Fred wrote:

Hi, Jeer.  I think you forgot to add, " No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation," to the quote you cited which was, "It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment."

I think that is the important point the author was making.

I didn't ignore that; I think it is obvious that I consider the proposal in the NYT's editorial to fall way beyond "reasonable restrictions".

Just because "no right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation", does not mean that government's power to enact restrictions on our rights is unlimited.
 

I consider the proposal in the NYT's editorial to fall way beyond "reasonable restrictions". -  Jeer

Ok, well I don't.  I do not consider banning weapons of war to be an unreasonable regulation.  We've been down this road before.  I'm sure there's some guy out there that would like to see regulations on surface-to-air missiles, land mines, hand-held bazookas, etc. lifted, too.  But that ain't gonna happen much to his dismay.

You and I simply want to draw the line on civilian owned weaponry at different places.