Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1580

by fche (#46782219) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Well, at least you didn't insult your opponents quite so openly this time. A lot of what you say is plausible, but you are doing a disservice by repeating Stevens' assertion that the recent Heller era decisions were somehow breaking with hundreds of years of precedent. That's not my understanding at all: it's more like the rise of the statist era (New Deal) started the more serious impediments on individuals' exercise of 2a rights.

(Look up a bit of the history US v. Miller, if you want to get disgusted with law sausage making - and one of the founding cases that let the New Deal era stuff hang around till Heller.)

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1580

by fche (#46779017) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

"I don't think anybody argued your "straw man" position, that lethal self-defense is never necessary"

It wasn't a straw man ... several posters here on thread made just that assertion.

"Do you accept that suicide or murders are sometimes successful? Are you prepared to sacrifice the lives of these people?"

Ah, the problem with your inversion is that it dreams that if the population were to be disarmed, suicide or murders would not occur (though means other than offensive firearms). So perhaps a compromise hypothetical - one which is quite realistic in fact - would go like ... "Imagine a bad guy without a gun is trying to rob/kill/rape someone. Should that person get to defend herself effectively? If not with a gun, how else?"

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1580

by fche (#46773161) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

At the least, it's progress for folks to admit that it's a dramatic change being contemplated, not merely correcting a little mistake or misunderstanding or something.

Your points as to the constitution being amendable are taken, as are imperfections of the times & people surrounding its creation. Current times & people are imperfect, and it is possible that philosophical well-educatedness has actually regressed since those days, so I wouldn't hold out much hope that new amendments would be well-considered just because they're no longer "out of date".

"You say that like it's necessarily a bad thing."

In this case, it would be a bad thing, for all the reasons the original "pointless editorializing" and its contemporaneous amplifications stated, which are still current and pressing.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1580

by fche (#46770595) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

I'm sorry, but I don't see an answer to my questions in yours.

Come clean out. In situations where lethal self-defence would be required, would you prefer the victims be unarmed? If the evidence you cite for "greater danger from your own gun than from others" turned out to be loony, would you change your mind?

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 4, Insightful) 1580

by fche (#46768115) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

"all of the evidence makes plain that owning a gun is more of a threat to the gun owner and his family"

Can you imagine a situation where you would accept contrary evidence? Would such acceptance require you to completely flip around as your penile / psycho jokes and maybe even apologize?

Do you accept that lethal self-defence is sometimes necessary? Are you prepared to sacrifice the lives of these people?

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen

Working...