|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: First side effect of the gay marriage ruling | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I guess that you didn't notice the "concealed" in "concealed carry".
Your citation doesn't address that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If showing an obvious fallacy in your argument is not enough, what is ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Oh, but I did.
quote: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
To put it in your words:
They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: i.e. I was right all along. There is no fundamental right to concealed carry.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You were arguing that there was a fundamental right to concealed carry. The fact that there is not is obviously relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Message 19 seems pretty clear. If you wished to argue for a different "fundamental right" you should have said so. You didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I checked and I didn't.
quote: And I replied in Message 17
...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.
And 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Apparently the "mistake" is recognising that there can be sub-discussions dealing with narrower topics.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024