Gun Control & RKBA

tortoise: If you had actually read the Stevens dissent in Heller, which evidently you didn't, you will see that Stevens first says there is no doubt that the second amendment confers an individual right.

Stevens did nothing of the sort, your excerpt does not show that; you use strained reasoning to create phantom support when none is there. Stevens only says whichever 'right' 2ndA conveys can be 'enforced' by individuals ,which is true, ie the police, or individuals in the legislatures. How you tortoise, get from a right being 'enforced' to that defining what the right is, is beyond me.

what stevens said: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Duh, tortoise, stevens is contending that a hypothetical 'conclusion' that 2ndA might convey an individual right, does not say how the individual right would be applied. He implies in later text that any individual right would be a right or duty to belong to a militia

stevens dissent: The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time.
The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

This above is the same stevens that the slow tortoise wants you to think viewed 2ndA as an individual right.

tortoise: Your comment about the Story quote being ambiguous is telling, in that it clearly shows the weakness of your case.

Justice Story, as most all contemporary 2ndA writers, was not clear due the ambiguity between 'the people' & the militia. I have not weakness in my case, & I referred to Story as ambiguous to counter your saying Story was 'clearly' disconnecting the people from the militia, since the word 'militia' was not used in a particular sentence, an utterly asinine contention.

tortoise: His dissent had concurrence from the other 3 justices in the minority. Obviously the majority held it to be an individual right. Still gonna argue that this isn't viewed as an individual right by the entire court?

The minority did NOT view 2ndA as an individual rkba, your argument is nutty.

what you said: He is stating - clearly - that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the citizens. Not militia - citizens.

When someone uses clear or clearly when there is no such animal, as scalia did in heller & you here, they're generally trying to hoodwink readers into accepting their position as gospel. But you & scalia are simply rightwing demagogues.

tortoise: You insist on finding ambiguity when you disagree with comments, and then demand we accept your contention that other comments are clear as crystal, when in point of fact they aren't.

Yet tortoise wants readers to accept his contention that story 'clearly' felt 2ndA an individual rkba.

tortoise: I won't put you on ignore, since hiding opposing POVs doesn't build knowledge or wisdom. I will not, however, expend any more time or energy arguing with a closed mind. Buh-bye...

How magnanimous of you not to put me on ignore; I won't lose any sleep over you either way.