Journalists shot, killed in Virginia during live shot

C) is what matters here.

 

Yes.

And, once they came to, they would write a Constitution that guaranteed individual liberty, and that limited government.

 

Like with many things, especially in the law, you can find well-regarded experts who have differing opinions.

And depending on partisan leanings, you either agree or disagree.

 

Just ribbing ya, man. I'm not actually bothered by the Clinton reference.

That said, just because I might agree with someone on one thing doesn't mean I have to agree with them on all things.

 

Well, except for Franklin, who would probably be pretty preoccupied with Internet porn.

 

I wasn't aware of this until getting led to it via some reading yesterday, but in 45 of the states the state constitution, to one degree or another, offers protection for a right to bear arms.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

some examples ...

In Connecticut, the protection (adopted in 1818 and modeled after Mississippi's) says "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

In Pennsylvania, the modified (in 1790) protection says "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

In Vermont, the protection (adopted in 1777) says "... the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State."

So this idea/assertion that the Second Amendment pertained strictly to a collective right doesn't pass the sniff test when you look at what the people who wrote/ratified it did when they got their hands on their own constitutions.

 

That's crazy talk!

 

Yeah, of course.

But, don't tell me I should agree with you because Jeffrey Toobin agrees with you. *

Tell me what Toobin's argument is in this instance, and why it should prevail over other arguments.

*(You should also make sure you understand his argument, and that it says what you think it says.)

 

Did 93Devil tell you that? Just by including Toobin's background with the selected paragraphs?

 

It's not a matter of "disagree(ing)" with Jeff Toobin. He makes some factual assertions that we could check out if we were so inclined.

What matters is that the excerpt that 93Devil turned up after some furious Googling doesn't say what he says it says.

 

Trotting out Jeffrey Toobin's "credentials" in a discussion like this is about this far removed (imagine someone holding his thumb and index finger a hundredth of a millimeter apart) from "Better listen to him Flounder, he's in pre-med."

 

I'm not defending Toobin but he has two degrees from Harvard, a Truman Scholar, editor of Harvard Law Review, clerked for a federal judge and was an assistant U.S. Attorney before writing full-time.

So what part of his credentials do you disagree or where you the guy who tossed out a Nobel Prize winning economist based on his political leanings and not on the quality of his scholarship?