10-05-2016, 10:24 PM
(10-05-2016, 10:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp, it seems we (the courts) agree that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not one that requires enlistment in a Militia. To be honest; I'm not sure if we agree on this or not, seems you are hedging.
As to the rest merely semantics. I'm sure the private company charges for their service and just like my Drivers License, the required ID can be used for other functions. But I have conceded let's require other people to pay for the ID.
I got it quite a while back.
Let's just agree that I fail to grasp your accurate representation of your position.
WTS, the discussion with you, Pat, and even Fred has been thought-provoking and relatively free of condensation (although the reading comprehension thing pushed the envelope). I will stay this for a thread more directed to the subject matter.
I don't agree with the court's interpretation currently, but that is the current way it is interpreted. That being said, the military is still a way to exercise your 2A rights paid by the taxpayers. The addition of private ownership doesn't remove that interpretation, just adds to it.
Sure the private company charges for their services, but who is requiring the purchase?
But yeah, this has been a pretty good discussion.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
