Ms. Baker, I referred to Chief Justice Waite’s comments purely for his reference to the Second Amendment protecting a right that exists independently of the Constitution and the federal government.
I regard my usage of Cruikshank as being in the same vein as your usage of Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott — except that my usage is more aligned to what was actually said.
I imagine that any modern person would hold the rulings in either case to be abhorrent.
The fact that you chose to rebut my points simply by pointing out the unpleasant outcome of a decision, a decision that had no bearing on my argument other than a source for a quotation, indicates that a worthy debate is unlikely.
In August of 1785, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to his nephew, Peter Carter, who was 15 at the time. A firm believer in physical exercise, Jefferson advised the young man, “As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”
Does this sound like a person who didn’t support, promote, or uphold the individual’s right to gun ownership?
You certainly aren’t the only one who fails to understand the import of the the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Some say that if the Founding Fathers had meant for this to be an individual right, they would have said so in the Bill or Rights.
It’s true the Founding Fathers did not make that specific point. But they didn’t make a specific point about breathing, either. Individual ownership of firearms was well nigh universal in that time.
The framers of the Constitution and those who debated over the need for a Bill of Rights weren’t debating over the individual ownership of weapons, that was a given. In fact, it was what made the militias possible. The debate was over the need to protect the people’s ownership of firearms from the whims of a monarch or a parliament. The Federalists believed the Constitution as written did not grant the federal government any authority over the core rights; that anti-federalists wanted it in writing.
No, Ms. Baker, it will take far more than misdirection to be credible.