DC v. Heller debate on campus...


PDA






Airman193SOS
March 4, 2008, 03:53 AM
Two of my campus professors are going to debate the merits of DC v. Heller in about a half-hour. One of them will be taking the "collective-rights" side of the argument, and the other will be taking the "individual-rights" side.

I have a few questions to ask, if they take questions (I anticipate they will). The one I really want to ask is thus:

Given that the ban on handguns and the requirement that longarms be locked up has been in force for the last 30 years, yet Washington DC has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the nation, how can you maintain that the ban is a good public policy when it forbids the right to defend yourself and your family even in your own home?

Any other good questions? Offer them quick, they'll be starting soon.

If you enjoyed reading about "DC v. Heller debate on campus..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
glennv
March 4, 2008, 04:20 AM
One of them will be taking the "collective-rights" side of the argument, and the other will be taking the "individual-rights" side.

I think you meant one is an a-hole and the other is a tolerant, understanding, level-headed individual who believes in individual rights and freedoms.

And the half-hour B.S. must have been requested by the anti. There isn't much to debate when you're wrong.

RP88
March 4, 2008, 05:30 AM
they'll blame Virginia. They always do.

"DC's gun crime...blah blah blah...Virginia is at fault with their 'easy laws'...they should be sued...blah blah blah"

stonewall308
March 4, 2008, 05:36 AM
You might also point that violent crime in DC fell for the five years before the ban and rose for five years after it.

Sapanther
March 4, 2008, 11:15 PM
I think you meant one is an a-hole and the other is a tolerant, understanding, level-headed individual who believes in individual rights and freedoms.

And the half-hour B.S. must have been requested by the anti. There isn't much to debate when you're wrong.

It is a debate, not a fistfight ... the person arguing collective rights could very well be the local NRA chapter Pres with the RKBA dude a card carrying member of the ACLU ... A debate isnt always about which side of the argument you beleive in ... it is a contest ... back in highschool i had to debate both sides of several different issues ... sometimes against myself ... that can get tricky ...


Oh and the 30 minutes thing .... it seems as though he said it was STARTING in 30 minutes ... not that it was gonna take that long

Rabid Rabbit
March 6, 2008, 09:18 AM
So how did the debate go?

AirForceShooter
March 7, 2008, 01:18 PM
need a followup.

I happen to applaude the idea that 2 professors had the nerve to bring the issue to a discussion.

AFS

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 7, 2008, 08:33 PM
Im glad it was 2 professors debating, and not the usual "1 professor using class time to rant to the students and shutting out any dissent".

Airman193SOS
March 9, 2008, 04:01 AM
My apologies for not getting back to this sooner. My boss had a medical condition which has kept me busy for the past few days.

Anyway, the debate, as it were, stuck strictly to the specific verbiage of the amendment, much to my disappointment. The professor who took the "collective rights" argument took the position that "the People" refers to the body politic, and not individuals. He attempted to make a fairly persuasive argument, and being an attorney and an exceptionally good practitioner of rhetoric, was quite convincing. Nevertheless, I did get in the first question, to wit:

Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has undertaken the legal procedure known as Incorporation, where the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states and the rights therein have been understood to be individual rights. With the exception of a few elements, "the People" has come to mean the individual. The Second Amendment is the only instance where "the People" has been interpreted as anything but the individual. How do you explain that?

He was quite honest in his response: "I don't know". He's a good guy, and while he argued from that position I don't believe that he has any faith in it. I admire both sides of the argument, but I'll tell you what I didn't care for: the professor who argued "my" side brought in an obviously toy gun, and thought it was funny to say over and over again "...from my cold, head hands". Rhetoric like that does not win friends or influence people, it simply polarizes the debate. Her argument was damaged because of that, in my opinion.

It was interesting, to say the least. I did my best to influence the Q&A, and I hope that I made an impression, but since the debate is so emotionally charged I would venture to say that it doesn't really make a bit of difference in the long-term. Maybe I changed someone's mind. That's all I can hope for.

yokel
March 9, 2008, 10:24 AM
I admire both sides of the argument, but I'll tell you what I didn't care for: the professor who argued "my" side brought in an obviously toy gun, and thought it was funny to say over and over again "...from my cold, head hands". Rhetoric like that does not win friends or influence people, it simply polarizes the debate. Her argument was damaged because of that, in my opinion.


This "debater" abandoned any pretense of seriousness by tempting the audience into cheap laughs by her clownish antics.

LawBot5000
March 9, 2008, 03:45 PM
We had Alan Gura debate one of our anti-gun con law professors and he completely schooled him.

IMO, anyone who prepares even a little can readily win a debate over the meaning of the second amendment. All the research has been out there for 10+ years and the anti-gunners haven't really come out with any new arguments that can't be anticipated beforehand.

TwitchALot
March 9, 2008, 06:43 PM
Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has undertaken the legal procedure known as Incorporation, where the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states and the rights therein have been understood to be individual rights. With the exception of a few elements, "the People" has come to mean the individual. The Second Amendment is the only instance where "the People" has been interpreted as anything but the individual. How do you explain that?

Take it from a gun control advocate (paraphrasing). "See, what people don't realize is that in the Second Amendment, People is capitalized, whereas in the other Amendments, "people" isn't capitalized. Therefore, "People" refers to the state, or the militia, and "people" refers to individuals. So the Second Amendment really protects the right of the state to have a militia."

Beat that.

Elm Creek Smith
March 18, 2008, 01:54 AM
Take it from a gun control advocate (paraphrasing). "See, what people don't realize is that in the Second Amendment, People is capitalized, whereas in the other Amendments, "people" isn't capitalized. Therefore, "People" refers to the state, or the militia, and "people" refers to individuals. So the Second Amendment really protects the right of the state to have a militia."

Beat that.

Okay.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259

Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

TwitchALot
March 18, 2008, 04:17 AM
In what way did you best that anti's statement? :confused:

sacp81170a
March 18, 2008, 06:56 AM
"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.

A "term of art"? I don't know if that makes me want to laugh or cry. I guess the "term of art" also means the same thing in the 1st ("the right of the people peacably to assemble"), the 4th ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"), the 9th ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")

I wonder what meaning they assign to "No person" in the 5th? "No" is capitalized, so that must mean some specific individual named "No", right? :barf:

Mike Sr.
March 18, 2008, 09:59 AM
Ask them if there is a constitutional right for police protection...

nplant
March 18, 2008, 03:34 PM
To directly best that anti's statement, I'd simply say, "Hmmm... I've never seen Amendment II refer to a capital-lettered 'people' before - your copy must be a misprint."

Seriously. Is this all they can come up with? I' just looked up some references, and cannot find a single one with the capitalization of "People" - they're all "people."

novaDAK
March 18, 2008, 04:17 PM
They capitalized "People" in the 2nd amendment because they were emphasizing the word. The writers wrote exactly what they meant. If it meant that the state had the right to have a militia, it would have said that...geeze!

Spot77
March 18, 2008, 05:50 PM
I spent the entire morning and part of the afternoon outside of the Supreme Court today along with many other Maryland gunnies. Mdshooters.com, Marylandshallissue.org and the Second Amendment Sisters all had a very strong showing. We far outnumbered the number of antis there.

But for this being probably the biggest gun case of our lifetimes, why weren't there 20,000 gunnies there?

There was tons of media there and many of us got interviewed multiple times. THR user Norton got quoted in media as far away as France so far and the AP has been running a lot of pieces on the case.

We debated constitutionality with many of the antis and when presented with the truth, they simply said, "I don't care. I don't like guns" and other huffy puffy drivel.

They have no standing and they know it. People like Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke might have to find real jobs if the decision weighs too heavily in our favor.

Wineoceros
March 18, 2008, 08:10 PM
But for this being probably the biggest gun case of our lifetimes, why weren't there 20,000 gunnies there?
Because most of us have jobs?

Spot77
March 18, 2008, 08:55 PM
Because most of us have jobs?


And you're implying I don't?


With allegedly 4 million NRA members, and over 80 million gun owners in the U.S., I'm sure more than a few hundred could take at least half a day off of work.

Your sarcasm indicates a complacency that will be the undoing of all of our gun rights.

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 18, 2008, 09:50 PM
Take half a day off work to fly to another state and hang around outside the SC building?

Spot77
March 18, 2008, 10:00 PM
Take half a day off work to fly to another state and hang around outside the SC building?

Yeah, again, more worthless sarcasm.

There's Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania and West Virginia all within an hour's drive of Washington, DC.

Amazing that we can have over 100 people show up to a local shoot each month, but ask those same people for a half day to defend the right to own and shoot and all you get is worthless sarcasm.

No, of course you're not expected to fly in to DC. Nobody really expects YOU to do anything.

Wineoceros
March 19, 2008, 12:14 PM
And you're implying I don't?
No. I'm explicitely saying that most of us do, and cannot justify taking a day off and spending hundreds of dollars just to hang around outside a building and pretend that we're making a difference. No need to read into my comments more than is there. I'm perfectly capable of saying exactly what I mean, even if you're not capable of understanding it.

With allegedly 4 million NRA members, and over 80 million gun owners in the U.S., I'm sure more than a few hundred could take at least half a day off of work.
To do what?

Your sarcasm...
There was no sarcasm, Skippy. I was serious.

...indicates a complacency that will be the undoing of all of our gun rights.
Don't strain a muscle patting yourself on the back there, and get off your high-horse before you get a nosebleed. If you seriously believe that your loitering outside the SCOTUS constituted any sort of real defense of any right...or even mattered at all...then I've got some swampland you might be interested in buying.

Yeah, again, more worthless sarcasm.
No more worthless than you going next door and playing hookie for the day.

Spot77
March 19, 2008, 10:32 PM
If you seriously believe that your loitering outside the SCOTUS constituted any sort of real defense of any right...or even mattered at all...then I've got some swampland you might be interested in buying.


I'll gladly buy that swampland. It's worth more than your opinion:

http://www.nbc4.com/slideshow/news/15629546/detail.html (This link has the most photos.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=Ah1zx_l_tjFJTGfDo8.b9ZSOe8UF

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031801014.html

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=5858

THIS is why we do these things. Certainly not because Chief Justice Roberts is going to walk outside and seek our opinions. With thousands of people walking by, school groups visiting and media from worldwide, would you prefer all of these pictures to be of Brady goons? Yeah, I'd much rather have Brady people handing literature and teaching constitutional law to the open minds of kids. Public opinion is where we lose these battles, not just courtrooms and legislative hearings.


I'm sorry my original question offended you so deeply that the best you could do was offer up a one line zinger and hail it as everybody's reasoning why the turnout was low. Nobody expects people from other parts of the country to attend. But when VCDL can muster 400 people on two days notice to attend a local town meeting, and MSI can rally 350 people to attend state legislative hearings, it seems odd that the Holy Grail of gun stuff is somewhat ignored knowing full well how much benefit can be realized through a little bit of action..


As to my high horse, I earned the right to sit upon it. I prefer to preach from atop my horse than to be the east end of a westbound horse.

Satisfied, "Skippy"?

.cheese.
March 19, 2008, 11:53 PM
but I'll tell you what I didn't care for: the professor who argued "my" side brought in an obviously toy gun, and thought it was funny to say over and over again "...from my cold, head hands".

I'm assuming you meant to put "dead" instead of "head"

maybe she just had poor circulation and her hands were really cold and dead. ;)

m1009
March 19, 2008, 11:56 PM
To Spot77: I read your post on being outside to show your support for gun rights, and applaud your being able to do so. While I wish I could take time off and show my support personally too, my job and monetary situation preclude that from happening. For example, I live in Indiana, and that's a bit away from DC, and with the current economy crunch, (gas prices, for one) my job duties, etc, I can't condone spending the extra precious money for travel expenses, food, gas, not to mention time lost from work. Also, I don't earn that much! So, I try to do my part with letter writing, and keeping up with the latest to do my part. And I vote, but seeing as the candidates lately aren't exactly what I would wish, well, we'll see how it goes. Just wanted to put my two cents in. :(

Spot77
March 20, 2008, 06:19 AM
I think I've been misinterpreted; I'm certainly not berating anybody for not being there. Absolutely in no way shape or form. As said in a previous post, I only found it curious that there didn't seem to be more interest at least locally. Realizing that the NRA originally tried to scuttle the case altogether, are NRA members following the original position and are still not convinced that this is the right thing to do?

Are gunowners more complacent than we thought? Is the "fix" already in so securely that most feel comfortable not making a big deal out of this case?

My original post was more a recap on the lack of the Brady's constitutional merit in arguing for the handgun ban, and of their continued weakness in pushing what seems to be a losing agenda. My question of attendance was only out of curiousity and not meant to sidetrack the thread. No need for anybody to feel offended or guilty for not being there; geographic and economic limitations certainly are a concern.

Wineoceros
March 20, 2008, 11:43 AM
I think I've been misinterpreted
No you haven't. What you've been is an obnoxious, insecure jackass who thinks he's actually done something important, when in fact all you did was stand around holding a sign...an action that will ultimately accomplish nothing other than you coming here and saying, "Ooh...look! My picture's on the news!"

There are many ways to actively support our 2A rights that don't involve mugging for the camera, so don't delude yourself any further into thinking you've taken some sort of moral high ground here.

IllHunter
March 20, 2008, 01:04 PM
I "feel your pain" Spot77 but we all do what we can when we can where we can. Those further from D.C. might be taking time off to raise our voices like this.
http://s251.photobucket.com/albums/gg315/illhunter/?action=view&current=MOV01682.flv
and Wineceros, "methinks thou does't protest too much"

Wineoceros
March 20, 2008, 01:26 PM
and Wineceros, "methinks thou does't protest too much"
Then you need to think again (your misquoting of Hamlet aside)...and read his posts again as well. He asked a question, and when he didn't like the (quite valid) answer immediately became belligerant about the issue, and went off on a holier-than-thou tear, pointlessly claiming that because there weren't more people there with him, the rest of us are not putting our money where our mouths are, so to speak.

m1009
March 20, 2008, 10:38 PM
For one, who will listen? I have written letters, emailed, signed petitions, am a member of the NRA, go shooting, try to speak to others about the sport, etc. Seems as if the 'powers that be' shut off once they get into office. Gets to be the I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine scenario. Sometimes I feel as if the only way we could once again be a proud free nation is if we change the rules on how the elections are ran and won. No more huge money needed for even starting to run for an office. You get elected on the basis of your beliefs and how they correspond to your constituents. Unfortuately, I don't see that happening. We just have to keep trying to vote for the best candidate to uphold our wishes and actually keep them once he or she get in. The media is very much to blame for this, too. They keep out the news that should be heard to push their agenda. Thought they were supposed to be neutral and just report the news? Yeah, right.

BamaHoosier
March 21, 2008, 12:33 AM
Anymore,I suffer from Electile Dysfunction around this time of the year:D!

Aussie bloke!
March 21, 2008, 12:39 AM
G'day everyone,.....

I have been listning to this case for a while now and I am listing to nranews.com live stream as I type this.

I would have thought that there would have been more people there to show support considering the magnitude of the case.
The size of people showing support might sway the opinions of those who might be fence sitting on the isue at this time.
Also those there being well dressed might also help to dispell the sterio-type image of firearm owners the anti's like to play up!
Any chance to undermine the image the anti's would have others believe surely is a worthwhile effort?

Allthough being outside will have no effect on the dicision the Judges will come to it will be a good morale booster for those suporters following the case.
Some good can come from being there like meeting others in other organisations and being able to take the oportunity to network with them for future events etc....
At least this is the way I see things.

I wish you all the best for the outcome of this case.
I realy hope that DC gets slamed in this case,you all have my best wishes for a great outcome.


Aussie.

Cougfan2
March 21, 2008, 01:08 AM
FOLKS, STOP SNIPING AT EACH OTHER!!!! We're all on the same side. I live in Portland, OR. Hell, I can't fly to DC to stand outside of the court, and I don't think anyone else, even if they live a freakin' block from the courthouse, has an obligation to show up if their job or financial situation would be compromised.

It's all well to clothe yourself in the patriot banner if you have nothing to risk, but even if you do, don't criticize people who chose to support RKBA with letters to their elected officials and other means of support.

United we stand, divided we fall!!! :fire:

JKimball
March 21, 2008, 02:08 AM
Airman,

Sounds like you did good. Too bad the debater on our side didn't do a better job of showing our position as the reasonable and rational one.

Spot77,

Thanks for being there. I completely agree that it is worthwhile to represent our cause in the media.

Spot77
March 22, 2008, 09:54 PM
No you haven't. What you've been is an obnoxious, insecure jackass who thinks he's actually done something important, when in fact all you did was stand around holding a sign...an action that will ultimately accomplish nothing other than you coming here and saying, "Ooh...look! My picture's on the news!"

There are many ways to actively support our 2A rights that don't involve mugging for the camera, so don't delude yourself any further into thinking you've taken some sort of moral high ground here.


Well I guess you sure told me.

XavierBreath
March 23, 2008, 05:39 PM
Well, I think we can just about close this one.

This is an Activism forum, not a political forum. Read the rules.

The High Road seems to be down a couple of members........wonder why.....:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "DC v. Heller debate on campus..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!