Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-17-2017, 02:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I disagree that the justification phrase is a meaningless add on. You can throw different opinions at me and claim I am ignorant if I disagree. But it was established law to regard it as a qualification up until the charming actor's agent made his extreme, right-wing decision.

Yes, the Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd was well establish from the end of the Reconstruction until recently.  The Jim Crow interpretation was very different from what was written and what was implemented in colonial and revolutionary times.

Reagan wasn't the origin of the 'standard model' of an individual right.  It began in academia.  One of the early articles was David Hardy's 1974 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, “Of Arms and the Law.”  It jumped from law review articles to the court rooms in 1999 when Judge Sam Cummings wrote the US v Emerson decision.  While Reagan was among many public figures working the common press, the real action was in the legal specialty press from 1974 through 1999.  After the Emerson decision, the academic work started getting recognized by the courts.

You seem to be asserting that all opinions are of equal merit. Certainly, in some fields such as religion or philosophy, this is arguably the case. If there are conflicts in these areas, all one can do is wave your hands and stand on conviction.

The interpretation of justification clauses is not such a case. You can look up all rights with such clauses, see how they have been interpreted, and judge whether the usual methods of interpretation make sense. A professional did just that. The Jim Crow interpretation is in direct conflict with how the US handles such clauses, and looking at the examples given it is obvious that you want the usual interpretation to stand.