DC v. Heller debate on campus...

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Airman193SOS

Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
267
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.
 
One of them will be taking the "collective-rights" side of the argument, and the other will be taking the "individual-rights" side.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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"
 
You might also point that violent crime in DC fell for the five years before the ban and rose for five years after it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


This "debater" abandoned any pretense of seriousness by tempting the audience into cheap laughs by her clownish antics.
 
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.
 
Airman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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."
 
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!
 
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.
 
Because most of us have jobs?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Take half a day off work to fly to another state and hang around outside the SC building?
Click to expand...

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.
 
And you're implying I don't?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
To do what?

Your sarcasm...
Click to expand...
There was no sarcasm, Skippy. I was serious.

...indicates a complacency that will be the undoing of all of our gun rights.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
No more worthless than you going next door and playing hookie for the day.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Campus carry in MI
Replies
1
Views
1K
Ricebrnr
R
J
  • Locked
Submit a question to the presidential debates.
Replies
1
Views
1K
hso
hso
J
  • Locked
DC wronged by Bush judge
Replies
4
Views
796
foghornl
F
C
  • Locked
DC v. Heller ==>> National Parks ?
Replies
7
Views
590
lacoochee
L
C
  • Locked
Interesting developments in the Parker appeal
2 3
Replies
70
Views
6K
alan
A
Back
Top