Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Colion Noir on Starbucks
Not only did he embarrass himself with the most foolish comparisons - gun owners and gays, gun owners and interracial couples - but he tried to pass off a whopper on us again, as is his trademark. The second amendment does not have anything to do with open carry or concealed carry. Even the mistaken Supreme Court rulings a few years ago did not cover carrying guns outside the home.
In this one he says gun-rights supporters should avoid the infighting that sometimes arises between concealed carriers and open carriers. "I'll stand up for the right of open carriers to open carry." But that's in sharp contrast with his previous video in which he had nothing but criticism for the "open carry idiots" who are ruining it for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Then why did Aymette, which Laci loves to cite, say that some form of carry had to be legal back in the 1800's?
ReplyDeleteYou may subscribe to a different interpretation, but there is precedent for Noir to argue from. Also, regarding Heller and McDonald, ownership was at issue--carry was outside the scope of the case, so the Court's lack of discussion of it does not prejudice the issue one way or the other.
Guns outside the home, as you rightly said, is another issue, which has not been ruled upon. But, ironically, the incremental approach to expanding gun rights will get there if things don't change soon. It's ironic because you guys are always accusing us of the slippery slope approach, but you're the ones doing it.
Delete"Guns outside the home, as you rightly said, is another issue, which has not been ruled upon. "
DeleteSo you're saying that the recent rulings by the seventh circuit and the Illinois state Supreme Court don't really count. The ruling by the seventh circuit resulted in Illinois being forced to implement a carry permit system where none had existed before.
Aymette ruled on it, and Laci finds it persuasive as context on how the right was viewed. The Court in Aymette ruled that bearing arms in a Militia required the carry of them outside one's home, so a complete ban on all forms of carry was Unconstitutional. Just because the Heller and McDonald decisions didn't cover the issue doesn't mean the issue has never been ruled upon.
DeleteRegarding your comments on incrementalism, that is how all political change happens and is hardly damning to one single side. You get high and mighty about it, yet you view eliminating private sales as one good step toward your number 1 proposal. You looked at Feinstein's AWB the same way, even though it didn't go as far as California's or your nebulous idea of one "based on California's."
Please explain what bear means. If the Second Amendment is only about owning, why the need for a redundant comment that you can also schlep the thing around in your home?
ReplyDeleteBut he's right on all points, as usual, and I'd hire him over Laci as my lawyer any day.
The fake professor is always looking for definitions of words., that's why I know he is a fake professor.
DeleteThe right to bear arms meant exactly one thing, to participate in the militia. It certainly did not mean carrying a 1911 everywhere you go in the year 2013.
DeleteThen why did the Aymette case say, in the 1800's, that carry couldn't be banned without harming this militia purpose?
DeleteThen why didn't the amendment say exactly that? It doesn't say that the militia may bear arms. It says the right of the people. That's all of us.
Delete