A Game isn't is Discussion

I feel that Japete's questions were asked not out of an attempt to understand or engage but rather as a means for eliciting enough material to respond to in her characteristic hyperbolic style. This style and the sense that she isn't listening to what her respondents have to say has frustrated many of those who have tried to engage with her. I myself feel like my honest attempts to have a discussion have had an effect more akin to Trolling than "Reasoned Discourse".

It is hard to come to any conclusion other than she is not trying to talk to us as much as create a narrative. She recently claimed to support the view of the 2nd Amendment put forth by the 8th Circuit in

United States v. Hale. This stands in stark opposition to her reassurances that "Nothing could be further from the truth" than her or the people with whom she work wanting to ban guns. Also the audacity to present a court case as representing the current case law when it stands in direct conflict with more recent Supreme Court ruling is very troubling. It is I think a fair representation of the anti-gun movements view of the 2nd Amendment.

Here is my response (which was edited out of the narrative) to that case and the case law upon which it is based:

"United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir.1992) rejects 14^th Amendment incorporation of the 2^th Amendment limiting its function to merely a constraint on the federal government, does not take a view on if the right granted is individual or collective right, and only recognizes the 2th Amendment as relating to “preservation or efficiency of a militia”. It is in fact a the product of a long series of cases which have had their rational refuted by the Supreme Court.

Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir.1942) states “The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent the federal government and the federal government only from infringing that right “ and attempted to create precedence from United States v. Miller by contending that there was none.

U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.) states “the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right” and created the non-rights holding category of “sedentary militia” ex nihlo very much the reverse of the "sovereign people" category created in Scott v. Sandford.

Since the McDonald v. Chicago incorporation of the 2^nd Amendment under the Due Process clause of the 14^th Amendment and its and District of Columbia v. Heller's recognition of an individual right to own weapons for some purposes by the Supreme Court a court hearing a similar case now would have to consider those issues and would be force to rule on another basis.

Also US v. Hale doesn't not address the fact that laws upon which it ruled both require and prohibit registration a situation similar to the one present in District of Columbia v. Heller were the laws in question were found unconstitutional."