Now you are just being silly. Of course Heller has plenty to do with every gun control law in the country, especially federal laws. When the Supreme Court decides the case, it will no longer just apply to DC, it will apply to the entire United States government. If the case is a winner, then complete gun bans are out for sure.
...
I'm really not sure why you find my posts so offensive, but since you seem to have made up your mind that you don't like me, perhaps you should just put me on your ignore list.
Dallas, although your reasoning is still scrambled I think we may be getting closer to real communication.
What you say about
Heller v. DC is wrong and misleading. That case does not have "plenty to do with every gun control law in the country, especially federal laws." If you read the filings and the question that the Supreme Court will consider, this case has to do with some specific issues related to the Second Amendment as they might be affected by the D.C. Code. The Supreme Court has said that it grants certiorari limited to questions raised by
three D.C. code provisions:
07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the following provisions - D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes?
Notice that the Supreme Court does
not say it will consider "every gun control law in the country" nor does it say it will consider any "federal laws." Read closely and you should notice also that the Supreme Court uses the words "limited to the following question" to exclude such speculations as yours and others. Although it's possible that the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about but you and the others do, I like to indulge those old guys. I'm all heart.
I
feel that the Supreme Court decision in
Heller v. DC is
likely to be crucial in affecting firearms laws in this country but in the absence of the prophetic gift and ominpotence all I can do is speculate. I think and am tentative. You believe and are certain.
Nevertheless I have no intention of putting you on my "ignore list." I don't have an "ignore list." I don't want to close my ears or my mind to people who don't agree with my thinking and I don't want to silence those with whom I disagree. I also am not offended by disagreement and I don't find the people disagree offensive just because they don't agree with what I think. It also doesn't bother me to find the occasional obsessive compulsive online. It's almost flattering to be considered so important in someone's life, and if it helps such a person to get through the day I've done some good. Besides, if I turn off my ears you get exclusive use of a platform that really isn't yours alone. You'll be much happier in the end if people can see when your thinking is bad and will get us all into a lot of trouble. Remember that Maryland is not a Second Amendment haven and consider that JohnBT pointed his finger at what probably is one reason why it's not doing well in that respect. Since you seem to have an "ignore list" so you can't hear people who disagree with you, you could put me on yours but if you do that with everyone who disagrees with you the only people you'll have left are those who agree and those who haven't yet disagreed. What a dull world that would be, and how surprising it would be when you eventually discover that you and others like you are isolated. Communication amongst people who disagree is better than mutual ignorance. Trust me on that.
I suppose I can't resist the temptation to be silly in response to the silliness of your thinking and attitudes, and of course your friends'. You have indeed explained why people who disagree with you are unquestionably wrong, and you believe that to be sufficient reason for everyone to cease and desist from disagreeing with you. But let's turn the situation around 180 degrees: several people have told you several times that you're wrong but you don't give the same respect you demand. You want the situation only one way, which is not surprising given your point of view.
From my point of view it looks to me as if the more your
approach is challenged, the sillier and more insistent on it you get. That approach--shared by others here, equally silly but a bit less articulate and probably less intelligent than you--is the absolute conviction that your own speculation is prophecy: that because something
might happen it will, and that anyone who doesn't agree is a "Leftist Troll" or a "Brady Supporter" or a "true believer in the church of the NRA."
If you don't want other people to treat you as silly, take off the clown hat and the red nose and stop the antic behavior. All of us can
speculate about potential outcomes of our decisions, and there's nothing wrong with such speculation. But when you talk about "the church of the NRA" and claim to know what other people
think and their motives for thinking what you
know they think, your mechanisms evidently have become deranged and you've spun off into another realm. Back off and return to some reasonable level of speculation.
Your starting point is at best whacky. With
your thinking the United States should still be fighting World War II. The Japanese did a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, tortured Americans they took prisoner, even ate some of them, and taught its civilians to fight to extinction. The Germans declared war on us for no good reason, invaded peaceful countries, enslaved and murdered their civilians, and enthusiastically followed a leader who despised even them and wanted first their elevation and then their extinction. For years both of those countries violated
every treaty they signed. In your prophetic vision and psychology we
should still be hunting down their survivors until all are gone because we should never trust them. With that vision and psychology we should still be fighting World War I, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, King Phillip, and the bloody battles among those first ancestors who emerged from their caves to fight over the possession of burning sticks.
But in this thread we're not even talking about blood enemies. We're talking about other Americans who do not share our thinking. You have put them all on your "ignore list," but some day the rest of us must come to terms with those other people in the United States. You can't
force everyone to think as you do, and where sheer numbers are concerned those who do not share your thinking about or fondness for firearms
overwhelm you. It is at least silly, and probably something much worse, to believe that there is no need to accommodate other people. But that's what you advocate as the only real, right position for the principled man to occupy. No compromise! From my cold dead hands! Molon labe! Tippecanoe and Tyler Too. Adolescent posturing is silly, and dangerous too. It helps us lose. There's another difference between us: I don't like to lose, and my concern is with keeping my firearms and enjoying them, not with your manhood or anyone else's. I've no interest in proving mine. I know it's still there. I don't have to keep looking.
Nor, from what I can see, is Robert Levy. He is not The Lone Ranger, come over the horizon to save the town from the bad guys. Levy is a lawyer with sufficient wealth to support his actions based upon his own Libertarian principles in matters that interest him. Levy does not own guns and has no interest in them.
Levy and the NRA disagreed about strategy in
Parker v. DC which became
Heller v. DC. Levy was not "right" and the NRA was not "wrong," and they were not and are not "enemies." They move towards similar goals in different ways. Levy and the NRA
disagreed. I disagree with you but I do not consider you my enemy. In time--partly because Levy's strategy seems to be working--the NRA came around to Robert Levy's thinking. I've no doubt that if Levy found that his strategy was not working he would have dropped or changed it. Rational people behave that way.
For a model of rational man online, by the way, look at Bart Roberts. I don't know him personally but his approach to rational thought is evident in his messages. It's possible to follow his thinking and evaluate it. He often starts with a text and reads it contextually, commenting on it in measured statements. On occasion he's speculative, never prophetic. I sometimes disagree with his conclusions but I know how he got there and can evaluate both his conclusions and his method. That's all any of us should ask. Agreement is a consequence of understanding: a fringe benefit, so to speak.
Still not perfect, still not ideal, but perhaps slightly better, I hope. Progress is a bunch of small steps strung together, and it's always worth the try when the stakes are important and the other party is not all transmitter and no receiver. You seem slightly different and possible. If you don't know what I mean don't worry about it. And, no, I don't find
you offensive, only some of what you say. I have a remarkably thick skin anyway.
