Posted on 05/26/2008 7:41:56 AM PDT by TheatricalOne
Hello members of the free republic community. I am currently working on a project for my government 101 class and I am in the dark. I am to write an opinion on D.C V Heller, (in which I side with Heller) but I am inundated with a lack of materials that are not infringed by liberal gun phobia. I am the only one supporting Heller in my class and I am being debated left and right, any idea would be much appreciated so that I am better equipped to fight back. I strongly believe that every American should own a gun if he or she wants to. I also firmly believe that it is not the governments place to infringe on such matters, only merely to have its hand in maintaining safety and proper registration protocols. So far my platform is such... the right to bear arms is a protected right under the penumbra of the 2nd and 9th amendment. (This idea stemming from the right to privacy penumbra as founded in Griswold V Connecticut) also is trying to figure out how to properly re-interpret the second amendment to try to understand the framers intentions. The flow of information and ideas has been tedious and daunting for me so far and most of what I find I can’t use. So this is why I am turning to the reasonably minded people of free republic. If anyone here has a link or an idea pleas post it below and help me fight back against my entirely liberal class.
I half-agree. It's hard to assemble alone. But you vote alone, so I'd say voting is still an individual right.
Do people only have a right to defend themselves at home?
In what way? By what statute? Under what circumstances?
"Protected" or uninfringed?
You have Freep mail
They do have the individual right. But that right is only exercised collectively (you can't vote when and where you please.)
All I was saying is that it's misleading (and confusing) to call something a collective right when it's really an individual right exercised collectively.
They do have the individual right. But that right is only exercised collectively (you can't vote when and where you please.)
All I was saying is that it's misleading (and confusing) to call something a collective right when it's really an individual right exercised collectively.
Nope. But that's all the Heller case covers.
There is nothing in the DC statutes making it illegal to defend yourself at home with a rifle, shotgun, knife, baseball bat, nunchuck, rock, or bare fists. If you wish to call that uninfringed instead of protected, I have no problem with that.
My point to the poster was that the DC ban was not a "de facto ban on the natural right of self defense".
Nam Vet
English is not so very hard to understand and needs no umbra's, penumbra's, pencils nor especially erasers.
Here's a tip.
Stet
If anything "scares" me, that would certainly qualify.
If anything "scares" me, that would certainly qualify.
Nonsense. Sorry.
And DC is about more than self defense in the home. Those were the facts of the case, but the issues are necessarily wider. Should they rule (as I hope they do, and they seem disposed to) that once and for all, yes, it is an individual right... then it gives us a chance to recover some ground lost to the infringements of the past.
Actually, yes you can. The government cannot prevent you from drawing up a ballot, putting names on it, and checking off one of those names. Now, no one will collect that vote, tally that vote, or enact anything in response to that vote. But you can't be prevented from doing it. Remember, our rights are not about what the government can do FOR you (set up booths, provide ballots, etc) but what it cannot PREVENT you from doing.
It's like free speech. Free speech is not nullified if no one provides you a microphone. Does that make sense? But being PREVENTED from carrying a gun is definitely an act different from failing to provide a ballot box.
Okay; First, as several others have pointed out, use simple language. Too many big words confue event the smartest folks, and sionce you are in a 100 level class, there ain’t too many really smart folks in attendence.
Second, simply quote the amendment as written, then ask what it means; examine its words in context, in historical meaning and examine the structure of the words/sentence.
There is no “penumbra” etc concerning the 2A; just simple straight forward text that means exactly what is says. In other words, there is no contrived, vague, theatrical meaning involved (like Roe v Wade).
Kinda like the sentence: “John ran to get the ball, it went under the porch”.
Avoid the “intellectual” aspect of this discussion like a plague-it just does not require such BS. “Intellectual” today means stupidly cumbersome and without understanding.
God Bless;
Molon Labe
A completely unsubstantiated declarative sentence that is meaningless.
To which DC Statutes do you refer?
You refer of course, to opinion polls and their use in the legislative process.
"Senator, today's Gallup Poll reveals the vast overwhelming majority of mindless myrmidons who we contacted believe the threat of global warming requires us to ratify the Kyoto protocols."
Best regards,
>I believe the right to self defense with a handgun is not protected.<
Saying there was no handguns when the Constitution was written? Vitelli won’t like that.
If you’re being debated already, then there is the grist for your mill. Listen and record every point that they are throwing at you. Do not concern yourself with an immediate response because that doesn’t sound like the crucial time for battle.
Take your notes of your enemies armaments and study to dissect them. use the links provided here and elsewhere. Remember not to waste your time refuting feelings - concentrate only on facts.
Build your case based on logic and law and not on emotion. You’ll do fine.
Better?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.