First side effect of the gay marriage ruling

No.First, so far as I can tell the reasoning in the ruling determining recognition by other states is different. That just refers to the problems of not recognising marriages performed in other states.Second, concealed carry is distinct from gun ownership. If you want to claim that concealed carry is a fundamental right, you need better reasoning than that.

I guess that you didn't notice the "concealed" in "concealed carry".Your citation doesn't address that.

If showing an obvious fallacy in your argument is not enough, what is ?

quote:

---

You didn't show an obvious fallacy.

---

Oh, but I did.

quote:

---

You claimed that because the DC v Heller case didn't explicitly state "concealed" when it said that people have the right to carry arms, then that means that they were not talking about concealed carry.

---

It means that they were not restricting themselves to concealed carry. Unfortunately for you that is all I need. So long as a state can follow the ruling without permitting concealed carry for all, the ruling does not establish concealed carry as a fundamental right.

quote:

---

They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that so your point was irrelevant.

---

In other words my point was entirely correct and proved you wrong.And you just try to declare it irrelevant. Are you turning into Faith ?

To put it in your words:

Nice imitation of Faith there, reversing the truth.You were the one supposed to be making a case - that concealed carry was a fundamental right.You failed to make a case that the element of concealment had to be permitted.And now you're declaring victory and running away.Pathetic,

And more hypocrisy.You haven't produced any real argument that there is a fundamental right to carry a *concealed* gun. You've just been - in your words - a dick about it.But to put it simply.Openly carrying a gun is carrying a gun.If you are allowed to openly carry a gun you are allowed to carry a gun. Even if you are NOT allowed to carry a concealed gun.Understand that?

quote:

---

The fundamental right is to carry. I don't care if its concealed or not.

---

i.e. I was right all along. There is no fundamental right to concealed carry.

quote:

---

The same argument would have applied to a license for open carry.

---

My argument certainly does. There is no fundamental right to carry a firearm openly, and there is no requirement to recognise open carry licenses from other states.

quote:

---

As I said, what you were right about was irrelevant to the argument.

---

You were arguing that there was a fundamental right to concealed carry. The fact that there is not is obviously relevant.

Message 19 seems pretty clear. If you wished to argue for a different "fundamental right" you should have said so. You didn't.

quote:

---

Sure I did, in Message 40, in Message 50, and again in Message 59.

---

And you're lying about two of those. As anyone who bothers to check will see.The fact that you didn't mention what you now claim to be arguing for before conceding my point is bad enough. That you try to pretend that you said so earlier, hardly encourages me to Believe that you made an honest mistake.

quote:

---

So I went and checked. I think you made a mistake.

---

I checked and I didn't.

quote:

---

He expands in Message 14:

​

quote:

---

A big portion of this ruling was just determining that marriage was a fundamental right...Now, we already know that having guns is a fundamental right.

---

---

And I replied in Message 17And that is where the discussion started.So it was already clear at that point that "having guns" was not the issue - concealed carry was.

quote:

---

Let us say that Open Carry is heterosexual marriage and is the norm for licences in the USA. But one state decides one should be able to Concealed Carry, against the notions of the other States. This is a queer carry method. If Marriage has to be recognized whether it is straight or gay, can we apply the same reasoning to the different forms of firearm licence?

---

The most important part of the reasoning of the Court's decision is based on the fact that all States are required to allow gays to marry. Thus you would have to assume that all States permitted both concealed and open carry licenses to have a truly analagous situation. The question you pose is simply not answerable on the basis of the Court's decision because of this.The decision also references the problems of States not recognising a marriage made in another State, but this is neither put forward as a decisive principle nor is it clearly applicable either.Finally, going back to the OP, my little researches revealed that States ARE permitted to have differing marriage rules and not recognise marriages which violate those rules. By this analogy, since there is no requirement to recognise all out-of-State marriages there should not be a requirement to recognise all out-of-State gun licenses.

quote:

---

Thankfully, you make the mistake clearer in this very post.

---

Apparently the "mistake" is recognising that there can be sub-discussions dealing with narrower topics.

quote:

---

You are still looking at the discussion too narrowly. The discussion was about how 'having guns' might equate to 'concealed carry universality' in the context of the marriage ruling.

---

Unfortunately for you Message 19 as written clearly claims to be making an argument for concealed carry as a fundamental right.In the face of that simple and obvious fact your argument fails.

quote:

---

Exactly, I didn't/don't think the concealed part really matters to the argument that I was making. And I hastily replied with Message 19 without really thinking much about it because the message I replied to didn't have any quotes and it didn't make much sense.

---

I can't buy that. How hard would it have been for you to SAY that the concealed/open issue wasn't important ? Given that both the OP and the part of Message 17 you quoted singled out concealed carry that would seem to be both obvious and necessary.

quote:

---

The argument isn't claiming that concealed carry is a fundamental right.

---

Given that the concealed/open distinction is obviously disanalagous to the straight/gay distinction then I think the argument has to make that claim, unless it is firmly clarified that it is NOT talking about concealed carry.

quote:

---

So I threw down the fact that SCOTUS ruled that the bearing part of having arms means that the people get to carry them to see what angle the poster was coming from.

​

When I got back a simple: "neener-neener, that didn't say concealed", then I realized that I was wasting my time.

---

If we look at what is written that is hardly an honest assessment. You argued that concealed carry was a fundamental right - again I am pointing to is what is written, and it is not at all ambiguous. I pointed out that the argument obviously failed.

quote:

---

If this ruling had been saying that a state couldn't refuse another state's marriage license at all, because the 14th makes it unconstitutional, then that would have been a pretty big precedent.

---

As it turns out, yes. Because it is currently the case that States do NOT have to recognise every marriage license issued by other States. But that point was not made clear either. The fact that the 14th Amendment is not easily read as justifying such a decision further confuses the issue. (The "full faith and credit" clause could be read that way but that requires overturning a lot of precedent)Equally importantly neither the OP, nor the article referenced in it was able to establish that the Court HAD said that. Let alone showed that the reasoning behind the decision applied to gun licenses. Those are pretty big holes in the argument.

quote:

---

Your mistake was thinking that the sub-discussion you started having had something to do with the discussion Cat Sci was having. Cat Sci's mistake was assuming the sub-discussion you were starting was related to the discussion he was having.

---

No, my "mistake' was assuming that Catholic Scientist was directly replying to the point he quoted, and despite his missing several opportunities to correct that. I mean how can you quote a paragraph consisting of two short sentences, both of them specifically referring to concealed carry without realising that it is talking specifically about concealed carry ?If he'd shown a little charity in answering Message 21 or Message 39 even accepting the possibility that I thought I was making a valid point he could have cleared it up. He didn't.I clarified what I was arguing for in Message 42 and he still didn't clear it up. .And Message 47 and Message 49 and Message 52 I clarified my view of the argument. And he still didn't try to clear up the misunderstanding he created.I hope that this has cleared up your view of the discussion.