sactowndog

Votr

What the ****

Yeah well the saying don’t mess with Texas exists for a reason. Texas turnout is already at 45% of 2016 and adding points daily.

What state?

30% of 2016 have voted.

https://theweek.com/articles/938981/why-libertarian-voting-biden

It isn’t just politicians kids. Connections matter in all walks of life. My friends son got into a hedge fund because of connections he made through ski team.

Well my assumption if the FBI under Trump had actual evidence of illegal behavior by Biden they would have acted long ago. While I think the FBI can be overzealous in their use FISA court, I don’t think they would ever overlook any politician acting illegally. My assumption may in time be proven incorrect we shall see. But for now that is the basis for my thoughts.

ACB is going to become an all time Meme.

Nor do I. My point is pretty much yours. HMHB is arguing the 2nd Amendment was not primarily to limit the power of the federal government. A power he believes is no longer a threat.

I’m not saying the rifle isn’t and shouldn’t be. You are the one saying their is no threat from the central state and it can’t happen here. BTW. Perhaps you should read. I’m not saying self defense isn’t a valid right. For many living on the edge of Indian Territory it was a necessity. The burden is on you to prove the threat from a central government is not a key component. Something you have failed to do.

Right the question at debate isn’t if self defense is a valid reason of the second Amendment. It is. The question is as shown in 46, is the 2nd Amendment largely about defending against a despot... This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. Tothese would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493411 Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one

The discussion was if it would become a tool. I don’t care enough at this point to quote the exact phrase of trusting your neighbors etc.

No they say self defense is a valid use. Not the only purpose or the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. But whatever. We aren’t getting any closer.

Federalist 29 didn’t mention self defense anywhere. We are going in circles at this point.

I enjoy debates with you because I find you interesting and at times with valid points. The constant disparagement of Biden by Libertarians and their potential complicity in the re-election of a clearly authoritarian Trump is giving me pause. I have previously given voting and financial support to libertarian candidates and I am re-considering if I will going forward. I doubt if I’m alone in that regard. I also recognize you have said if you were in a swing state you would vote Biden.

Are you in a swing state?

I read the paper and your extenuating defense to self defense. It is not in just that context.

Defense can have many meanings and I don’t doubt self defense given the presence of hostile enemies was one of many intended meanings. But nothing you posted prescribes a ranking of the meanings in terms of importance of the 2nd Amendment.

Yes I read that. And I would agree that self defense is viable reason for a subset of arms that would meet that need. But as you also pointed out the founders talked about having arms commensurate to the standing army. (A right which we have lost btw) The needs for arms of that type is only needed to overthrow a tyrannical despot. Again your defense of the 2nd Amendment and its breadth of arms protections when contrasted to your assertion of an authoritarian being impossible is illogical and contradictory.

Federalist 29 makes no mention of self defense. While I am happy to listen to Scalia’s scholarship on other writings it is clear the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment as discussed in 29 is defense against a despot. A defense you strangely assert is no longer needed. I brought up the federalist papers because they are a primary source of the founders thoughts in drafting the constitution.

Latest Lincoln Project ad... Trump losing badly among women and this ad won’t help him. https://youtu.be/VlJqf_9YYj0

Yes the population had access to weaponry comparable to the military because the founders worried about the threat of a federal Despot! The very threat you wrongly claim is now longer possible. Federalist 29 underscores the point of the 2nd Amendments requirement to combat authoritarianism. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp The fact is many libertarian's have proven they are only left wing libertarians but are fully on board with allowing right wing authoritarianism, It is a stance that will harm the growth of the party for years.

So just parsing what you posted..... "The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendme