User talk:Centerfire

	The Drama Llama is Watching You
	The owner of this page reserves the right to delete trolling and drama at their discretion.

2nd Amendment

Dissent with your view is not uncommon. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." — the way I read it? People can have whatever guns they want as long as they are in an organised militia, y'know, one that's intended to protect the country. If they're not intending to defend the country, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:36, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Note that I was not attempting to argue that the debate was settled; on the contrary, I was taking issue with your characterization of Americans as "dopes" who either stupidly or dishonestly refuse to read the militia clause of the Second Amendment, and thus believe that that they're entitled to hoard machineguns. As you can see from the very Findlaw article you've cited, the issue is far from definitively resolved; in point of fact two federal appellate courts are in direct conflict on the question of whether individual citizens have enforceable rights under the Second Amendment. At a minimum, it's fair to say that there are respectable arguments both ways. That said, the weight of modern legal scholarship (as opposed to court decisions, which are frequently behind the academic curve), even among individuals personally opposed to firearms ownership, leans toward an individual-right interpretation of the amendment, and away from a state- or militia-centric view. Even a guy like Laurence Tribe, the Harvard Law professor who's a likely Supreme Court nomineee under the next Democrat president, has conceded that the Second Amendment safeguards an individual right not connected to militia service, albeit of uncertain scope. The debate's ongoing -- these are lawyers after all -- and it's perhaps early to claim that there's a clear consensus, but even opponents of the individual-right model will tell you which way the academic wind's blowing. If you're interested in doing some reading, I would suggest beginning with Sanford Levinson's The Embarassing Second Amendment. The article's a bit dated (it cites Tribe's 1989 views, which have evolved since then), but is still a good stepping-stone into the literature.

No

(snip)

I have a better idea. Since I don't foresee us getting along anytime soon, how about we just ignore each other from this point forward unless circumstances somehow require us to interact. Agree? (Actually, it doesn't matter if you agree or not. It would be nice if you did, but I'm going to ignore you whether or not you agree with me.) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:54, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Done. --Centerfire 03:06, 31 August 2006 (BST)