For the 2nd amendment "buffs"

[TeyshaBlue]

Between your own ears

Absolutely. And I don't have to use that organ very much to bust your idiotic takes.

[Blake]

Joyce Lee Malcolm, 2nd amendment scholar.

NRA Money Helped Reshape Gun Law


In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Cons ution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of cons utional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.”

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...-law-don-kates

(George Mason University)PROFESSOR OF LAW JOYCE LEE MALCOLM*is a historian and cons utional scholar active in the area of cons utional history, focusing on the development of individual rights in Great Britain and America. She has written many books and articles on gun control, the Second Amendment, and individual rights. Her work was cited several times in the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in*District of Columbia v. er...

http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/direc.../malcolm_joyce

I'd like to ask her in depth regarding the circular reasoning of "weapons of common use"

[boutons_deux]

2nd Amendment!

marans!

It's all about profits for guns and ammo industry, and paranoid less gun fellators hiding behind the 2nd Amendment and NRA lies.

[DisAsTerBot]

marans!

[TeyshaBlue]

I can't create a cogent, original thought.

[TSA]

I'd like to ask her in depth regarding the circular reasoning of "weapons of common use"

Here is her email, [email protected]
Please repost your in depth questions and her responses in this thread. Thanks.

[Blake]

Here is her email, [email protected]
Please repost your in depth questions and her responses in this thread. Thanks.

Will do. Thanks for the idea.

Greetings Dr. Malcolm,

I just finished watching an 8 minute interview you did on the PBS Newshour, and I had a question regarding it.

In this interview, you referred to what seemed to be a cut off of "right to bear arms" at what the Supreme Court itself has referred to as "weapons of common use."

I have read Justice Breyer's dissent in 2008 "D.C. vs er" and tend to concur that the "common use" distinction is in fact, circular reasoning.

If Congress still retains the ability to say what a common use weapon shall be, aren't we right back at square one?

I fail to see how this can pass cons utional "muster".

I'm an amateur Cons ution buff who enjoys these 2ND Amendment debates. If you would explain how this wouldn't be circular reasoning, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Blake
San Antonio, TX

[Blake]

Reading it again, i asked the question the wrong way.

I should have asked how the 2008 ruling passes cons utional muster and why they are now changing course after 200 years of precedence.

Oh well.

[TSA]

You'd think one writing a cons utional scholar would double check their question to make sure it was right, regardless, please post the response when you get it. Should be interesting.

[Blake]

I'd say the chances of getting a response are low, even if I asked it the way I wish I had.

She has no good reason to respond to an anonymous email, especially in this day and age of trolls looking to make smart people look like fools......like I would be looking to do to her.

If she does respond, I will most definitely take better care of my questioning.

[Blake]

I also won't use my cell phone to write it. smh.

but looking at it again, I think the question I gave her should be sufficient enough to get going on achieving my ultimate goal here.

[TSA]

If your ultimate goal is getting curb stomped by a woman who's devoted much of her life to the cons ution, and specifically the 2nd amendment, I'm looking forward to it. I wish Fuzzy would join in but this woman has all over every study he's posted, so I don't see that happening.

[Blake]

I've got my game plan ready for what I want to accomplish.

Since you and every other 2nd Amendment flag flyer on this board tend to pussy out, it would be great to actually get a real conversation going with someone like that regarding what point a weapons ban passes cons utional muster.

[TSA]

Be sure you can actually define "excessive" firearms this time, you've had a few months now.

[Blake]

Be sure you can actually define "excessive" firearms this time, you've had a few months now.

I don't care about defining it.

You however have had months to come up with a good reason why semi automatics are necessary for self defense when a simple pistol....or a knife....or a car....depending on which argument you 2nd amendment nuts are trying to make......should suffice.

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like Blake is one who lives in poverty and believes nobody's personal preference needs to go beyond needs.

[TSA]

Well you should care since "excessive" has been the basis of your reasoning. By the way, I have a handful of simple pistols that happen to be semiautomatic. You act like a firearm being semiautomatic is so much more dangerous. If I wanted to pluck off people one by one I wouldn't choose a semiautomatic, I'd use a single shot bolt action, much more deadly and accurate from distance.

How do you define a "simple" pistol? A revolver? You know that almost all revolvers are semiautomatic now correct?

[Blake]

Looks like Blake is one who lives in poverty and believes nobody's personal preference needs to go beyond needs.

smh per par

[Blake]

Well you should care since "excessive" has been the basis of your reasoning. By the way, I have a handful of simple pistols that happen to be semiautomatic. You act like a firearm being semiautomatic is so much more dangerous. If I wanted to pluck off people one by one I wouldn't choose a semiautomatic, I'd use a single shot bolt action, much more deadly and accurate from distance.

How do you define a "simple" pistol? A revolver? You know that almost all revolvers are semiautomatic now correct?

Awesome. So when can I buy my nuke.

[TSA]

Awesome. So when can I buy my nuke.

Define simple pistol and quit your illogical nuke angle.

[TSA]

As a non-cuck I got better things to do then argue on the Internet all night. 24 hours should be plenty of time for you to define simple pistol.

[Blake]

Define simple pistol and quit your illogical nuke angle.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to bear a nuclear arm.

simple pistol would be the simplest gun out on the market that can kill.

run away from these simple questions, pussy.

[Blake]

As a non-cuck I got better things to do then argue on the Internet all night. 24 hours should be plenty of time for you to define simple pistol.

you should use your non internet time to learn to communicate better.

As a dumb , you won't.

And you'll be back soon.

[DMC]

So where can you buy a full auto weapon?

Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons. There is a difference between a ban and a confiscation. No one is proposing confiscation although I think a buyback makes a lot of sense.

www.subguns.com

lol

[DMC]

The common use thing isn't circular reasoning. A nuke isn't a common use weapon. A .22lr is a common use weapon. A handgun is a common use weapon, but a Glock 18 is not a common use weapon. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Where's the circular reasoning? No law is exhaustive in it's terminology. They make broad statements and those will be interpreted by courts later (just as "right to keep and bear arms" is interpreted today). Arms can be anything, or it can exclude anything depending on how the USSC chooses to interpret the meaning.

The only way it could be circular reasoning is if they said "The USSC determines what is and what isn't a common use weapon" followed by "the 2nd Amendment only applies to common use weapons". That's not what was done. We can illustrate many things by using argumentum absurdum. If it's true at the absurd level it's true. Example would be that we do not feel that the 2nd Amendment allows us to have nuclear weapons. That seems like a no brainer, but then where is the line? How about conventional ordinance? Could I own a fire missile? A shoulder fired AA missile? It's legal to own AA artillery, but not shoulder fired AA missiles.

There will always be interpretation, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't hinge on common sense decisions. It has to stand on its own as an individual right, just like the 1st Amendment. Common sense changes over time.