1. Object on moral, ethical, logical grounds.
2. Claim factual basis for objection.
3. Fail to supply evidence but demand proof from others.
4. Refuse to look at proof.
5. Claim proof is factually wrong.
6. Claim proof is biased.
7. Return to Step 1.
The water is in front of the horse, and now I have to force the horse's head into the water. But will the horse drink or hold its breath?
ET is stuck in Steps 3 and 4 of the above cycle, demanding I click on the URL and display the contents. So as an exercise, I will do so. It is instructive to those who deal with people like ET to follow their response pattern.
Note that ET does not respond to his misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment text as "well armed militias" instead of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Once caught in an error or misrepresentation, ET just moves on, expecting unlimted strikes at bat.
The interesting thing about the anti-gunners, is once their plan is exposed, they still stick with it. (Secret: ET's next move is an assortment of 4-6.)
I will allow the chance to be slightly surprised - ET might look at the sources and say he is convinced and run out and buy a gun. Or ET might completely surprise me and provide some references refuting the points made in the sources I supplied. Honestly, the people who do that are the most difficult to deal with, as once one has two opposing data/expert sources, one has to critically evaluate them. Fortunately, in the 37 states that have gone to Right to Carry/Unrestricted Carry, nobody has shown up at house/senate hearings with other than an emotional appeal - so the anti-gunners have consistently lost.
ET says: "cite the published court opinions to which you are referring"
USDOJ (as this document goes on to cite 437 Court and Expert Opinions, I'm hoping ET doesn't expect me to cut and paste the whole text of
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
"The Second Amendment of the Constitution provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You have asked for the opinion of this Office on one aspect of the right secured by this Amendment. Specifically, you have asked us to address the question whether the right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the States, only to persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to individuals generally...This memorandum proceeds in four parts. Part I addresses the current unsettled state of the law in this area. Part II demonstrates that the text and structure of the Constitution support the individual-right view of the Second Amendment. Part III shows why this view finds further support in the history that informed the understanding of the Second Amendment as it was written and ratified. Finally, Part IV examines the views of commentators and courts closest to the Second Amendment's adoption, which reflect an individual-right view, and then concludes by describing how the modern alternative views of the Second Amendment took hold in the early twentieth century."
ET says: "please feel free to name the legal scholars to which you are referring, and their specific writings" And so here are the scholar listed on the web page, with selected publications for some. Again, I'm hoping ET doesn't require me to click on each scholar and click on each available test and cut and paste them all here.
Prof. Randy Barnett, Boston Univ. Law (Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal)
Prof. Frederick Bieber, Harvard Medical (
Prof. Bob Cottrol, George Wash. Univ. Law
Prof. Brannon Denning, S. Illinois Univ. Law
Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute (That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (University of New Mexico Press 1984)
Prof. James Jacobs, NYU Law
Prof. Nicholas Johnson, Fordham Univ. Law
Don Kates, Pacific Research Institute (Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, Michigan Law Review)
Prof. David Kopel, NYU Law (adjunct) (Supreme Court Gun Cases (Bloomfield Press 2003)
Prof. Edward Leddy, St. Leo College
Prof. Sanford Levinson, Univ. of Texas Law (Is the Second Amendment Finally Being Recognized as Part of the Constitution?, BYU Law Review)
Prof. Nelson Lund, George Mason Univ. Law
Prof. Joyce Malcolm, Bentley College (To Keep and Bear Arms (Harvard University Press 1994), the leading scholarly work on the historical development of the right to keep and bear arms)
Prof. Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University
Prof. Roger McGrath, Cal. State Northridge
Prof. David Mustard, U. of Georgia Business (Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, Journal of Legal Studies)
Prof. Joseph Olson, Hamline Univ. Law
Prof. Carol Oyster, U. of Wisconsin Psych.
Prof. Dan Polsby, George Mason Univ. Law
Prof. Scot Powe, Univ. of Texas Law (Guns, Words, and Constitutional Interpretation, William & Mary Law Review)
Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynolds, U. of Tenn.
Dr. Helen Smith, Southeastern Psych. Servs.
Prof. Mary Zeiss Stange, Skidmore College
Prof. William Van Alstyne, Duke Law
Prof. William Vizzard, Cal. State Sacramento
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law (The Commonplace Second Amendment & The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment, NYU Law Review)
The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment, NYU Law Review.