Actually, it is a subsititution argument, and it is as logical as the substitution is.

Are you saying that the 2nd amendment is lesser than the other basic rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Mark, your analogy of the Army Private possessing weapons is misplaced. I was a Private at one time. I know the rigorous supervision and controls that are imposed on Privates possessing weapons. With the exception of war zones, where military personnel have relatively unfettered access to their weapons, those weapons are turned into the Armorer after every duty shift. Moreover, in war zones, no armed Private is ever going to be allowed to leave his cantonment area during "everyday activities" while he is liquored up. Therefore, the risk to the general pubic is negligible.

It's not a valid substitution argument. The substituted argument must logically fit within the context in which it is being analyzed. How do voting rights have anything to do with the perils of youthful immaturity being paired with alcohol and dangerous instrumentality in a public health and safety context?

HA HA HA HA HA!

Let me rephrase how you have countered Rothman's arguments so far.

All my 'facts' are common knowledge, all my comparisons are reasonable and fair, all my conclusions are logical, all my hyperbole are on-target. Yours are not, so rather than address them and defeat them with ease I will slap them with negative labels and hope you do not notice I have defeated zero of them logically.

If only every adult, regardless of their age, was as responsible as you, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Best wishes for a safe and productive academic career. --Uncle Harley

"The substituted argument must logically fit within the context in which it is being analyzed"

Please cite this rule.

Second, it fits logically within the context because in all cases you are using 'public good' to abridge a basic human right.

Andrew, take your finger off the trigger. You obviously haven't read my initial post carefully. There's a link to a post in my MySpace blog where I do a balancing of interests analysis between 1st Amend. freedom of association and 2nd Amend right to bear arms. I hope you find it informative.

It's not called public interest law for nothing! Carrying a gun in public isn't a "basic human right". Read the Declaration of Independence about inalienable human rights. 2nd Amend. rights are created by the U.S. Constitution. They expressed the will of the polity as represented by their elected constitutional conveners, you know, the guys that authored and signed the Constitution.

The chance that someone might not be is no reason to deny someone else their natural rights.

While public policy adheres to the whole of society, rights only adhere to the individual. If you let policy dictate which rights each citizen may use, you might as well not have rights at all.

So far, you have failed to address anything I have said to you, and when addressing the valid objections of others, you have responded with pure argumentativeness. Granted, it has been rather long-winded argumentativeness, laced with the hallmarks of scholarship. But argumentativeness it remains. It seems to me that you will be quite happy in your ivory tower, but the rest of us have to live out here in the real world. What's more you have failed to show that you are any kind of "liberal", and instead make purely elitist arguments.

I have said that you are running the risk of being labeled a troll. That risk has only increased, the more you say. Had you not led with all this business, and instead become more a part of our online community, you no doubt would have rankled less. But since this is the way you start off, I am led to surmise that it was entirely your intention from the very moment you joined. I cannot guess what emotional state you must be in to need this sort of validation, but it does make me sad.

You should take Andrew's warning to heart, if you wish to continue contributing.

This has nothing to do with ego--it has to do with you backing the garbage you're spewing and labeling as fact. Show me a correlation between young permit holders and propensity for shooting people at bars. As aforementioned, driving is a privilege not a right; therefore, the situation of a young permit holder and a young driver are rather dissimilar.

The right to self-defense is a basic human right, and a gun is an important tool of defense. Liberty is also a basic human right, and as a libertarian restricting someones rights is unjust. Does your view point as a liberal mean you believe the public interest trumps the right of individuals?

BZZT! Incorrect. The right of self defense is indeed a "basic human right". Don't deign to lecture US about the DoI!

You want reading homework, read "Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine. Then read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill. Then you might get an inkling of what liberalism means, and wouldn't try to lecture us.

RKBA is simply about the most effective means to self-defense. The 2A does not GRANT a right, it RECOGNIZES a pre-existing right.

Thanks for playing.

Wow...I thought the founding fathers and the framers of our Constitution had been pretty clear that the document they were assembling granted nothing in the way of "rights." It was my understanding that the BIll of Rights was assembled as a recognition of the rights that every man enjoyed and as a limit to the powers that a new federal government could assume.

If you'd cite the source of this amazing document's power to grant rights I'd be happy to trot over to the Law library and verify your claim so we could all start afresh from the same viewpoint.

I just want to let everyone know that I am so smug and smart it makes me want to shit.



Where's the toilet paper?