Gun Control & RKBA

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

28. here is the logic,

Sat Mar 17, 2018, 08:29 PM

Mar 2018

"people" in the rest of the BoR refers to individuals, just like it does in the 2A. The BoR were forced on the Federalists by the Anti Federalists to protect individual rights from the government overreach. Some investment blogger plagiarizing the same cherry-picked quotes out of context doesn't change that fact.
That the other guy was making.

What I found amusing that the comments section is better informed than the writer.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What America's gun fanatics won't tell you [View all] ffr Mar 2018 OP

So, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" AzureCrest Mar 2018 #1

Is that your only conclusion to the OP-ED after reading Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29? ffr Mar 2018 #2

Trying to figure out your logic, here. AzureCrest Mar 2018 #3

I'm sorry, but you just made a straw man fallacy. I have offered no proposition at this point ffr Mar 2018 #4

"The Second Amendment doesnt give you the right to own a gun " AzureCrest Mar 2018 #10

Just sayin' what? Who are you talking to? ffr Mar 2018 #24

it isn't a strawman, gejohnston Mar 2018 #22

It quite clearly is a straw man fallacy. I have made no proposition. ffr Mar 2018 #26

here is the logic, gejohnston Mar 2018 #28

Who are you talking to? This isn't a reply. ffr Mar 2018 #31

Yes you did. krispos42 Mar 2018 #61

I get it... Puha Ekapi_2 Mar 2018 #63

For 200 years the said safeinOhio Mar 2018 #5

no it didn't gejohnston Mar 2018 #20

False equivalency, in my opinion. pangaia Mar 2018 #29

Thats not all the laguage of the second. HopeAgain Mar 2018 #34

Thats a very good point Eko Mar 2018 #6

You had me interested there in what you had to say all the way up to the point ffr Mar 2018 #7

I thought these were your words. Eko Mar 2018 #8

Nope. Who are you talking to? n/t ffr Mar 2018 #12

You. Eko Mar 2018 #16

Ah, I see Eko Mar 2018 #9

You got it! ffr Mar 2018 #13

It still doesnt change the fact Eko Mar 2018 #11

The third straw man fallacy already in this brief discussion. ffr Mar 2018 #15

that argument Eko Mar 2018 #18

Well yes, there is a straw man there. ffr Mar 2018 #23

Wow, so no one can comment Eko Mar 2018 #25

You are welcome to comment on the article, but you will get my rebuttal ffr Mar 2018 #27

Ive been here since 2011. Eko Mar 2018 #33

No, Eko, it does not reply to me directly. It replies to me INdirectly. ffr Mar 2018 #38

The article is responding back to me and not you? Eko Mar 2018 #40

Can you re-write that? I'm not sure what to make of it. n/t ffr Mar 2018 #42

"When you reply to a sourced article posted on D.U., you are replying to that sourced article." Eko Mar 2018 #46

In other words Eko Mar 2018 #47

Sorry, but I don't have time for this. ffr Mar 2018 #48

All you have to do Eko Mar 2018 #49

There is no Eko Mar 2018 #50

See how this is done? Eko Mar 2018 #39

What is your point? ffr Mar 2018 #41

My original post to "the article" Eko Mar 2018 #43

Why are you telling me this? ffr Mar 2018 #45

Where is the rule that says that? Eko Mar 2018 #51

Huh? There's no rule. Why do you bring that up? I've explained this already. ffr Mar 2018 #54

And I replied to you. Eko Mar 2018 #56

I wasnt the only person to make that mistake. Eko Mar 2018 #14

No, it's quite clear. The excerpt in light blue references the article clearly. ffr Mar 2018 #17

Yeah, Eko Mar 2018 #19

That's a given. Articles are referenced sometimes at the top for LBN, but usually at the bottom. ffr Mar 2018 #55

Yup Im familiar with those. Eko Mar 2018 #57

Sorry, Marketwatch is gejohnston Mar 2018 #21

Not a very historically sound point of view. SomethingNew Mar 2018 #30

Here's the fourth straw man fallacy. How many minutes has it been? ffr Mar 2018 #35

Post removed Post removed Mar 2018 #37

Even Scalia agrees that there is no right sharedvalues Mar 2018 #32

Heller did not affirm an individual right? Marengo Mar 2018 #66

Another ref agreeing with post: 2nd militia amend allows regulation sharedvalues Mar 2018 #36

Thats a very good point Eko Mar 2018 #44

You don't really think those assholes CARE what the constitution says, do you? Ferrets are Cool Mar 2018 #52

Finally, my interpretation! leanforward Mar 2018 #53

Correct. Straw Man Mar 2018 #59

Title 10, United States Code, Section 311 krispos42 Mar 2018 #58

women suffered with no suffrage jimmy the one Mar 2018 #68

I'll say this discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2018 #60

Federalist 29 isn't about the 2nd Amendment. MarvinGardens Mar 2018 #62

Well, the first quoted paragraph was good. ManiacJoe Mar 2018 #64

President Obama disagrees with you... AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #65

ffr thread is spot on jimmy the one Mar 2018 #67

You forget that the findings in Miller were rendered moot by Heller. The same standard applies... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #69

Icon claims 1939 Miller decision was overturned. jimmy the one Apr 2018 #70

Glad I am not a fanatic - love quoting Fed#29 to point out what was meant by "well regulated". jmg257 Jul 2018 #71