Mr. Codrea,
I appreciate your comments. I do object, however, to your contention that I am challenging "the leading authorities on the subject" when I state that both sides of the gun debate issue can cite colonial history and arguments made by the Founders to support their case.
First, though I do not question Mr. Halbrook's scholarly credentials, there is no monolithic set of "leading authorities" who are all in agreement regarding the Founders' intents. A quick Google search of the gun rights issue will bring up myriad federal court cases (Silveira v. Lockyer, for example) in which federal judges explicitly declare their belief that the intent of the Founders was to preserve a collective rather than independent right to bear arms. While I am not endorsing or refuting either the federal courts' or Mr. Halbrook's view of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, I would posit that federal judges should be included among "leading authorities on the subject" and that "leading authorities" thus appear to disagree on the issue. There is apparently some gray where you would like to see only black or white.
Second, you can examine the 1789 "House Journal" and "Senate Journal" (the official records of the original debate) or the "Annals of Congress" (compiled decades later) to assess the intentions of the Founders. Contention over the meaning of "milita" abounds, a point critical to collective rights advocates. You can additionally examine English common law, often referenced in the colonies prior to the Revolution, and find a debasement of the individual right to bear arms starting as far back as 1328. These are but examples of the historical evidence that gun control advocates might use to substantiate their case and what I intended when I wrote that "both sides can cite colonial history and quote from the Founders."
But my point in writing the original letter was not to position myself as a leading scholar of matters constitutional nor to advance a particular point of view, but rather to express disappointment that such a complex and interesting issue was treated in so one-sided a manner. I was hoping that leading scholars on BOTH sides of the argument would write thoughtful pieces, and that I and other readers would benefit from their contrasting viewpoints.
I would very much appreciate your removing my e-mail address from your web site as it is intended for school business, and I do not want to be inundated with Second Amendment-related e-mails. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Regards,
Katherine Letellier
My reply:
Ms. Letellier,
Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
I did not ask you about Silveira. I did you [sic--my bad--it was late] ask you about English law in 1328.
I asked you to substantiate your claim that "Each side can cite Colonial history and quote from the Founding Fathers."
Please provide these quotes from the Founding Fathers you say exist that state there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.
That's what this is all about, and that's all I'm looking for.
Can you do this? Yes or no?
Everything else is nonresponsive to my specific question.
In re your email address, it is a public record on the internet, available to anyone doing a Google search on your name. However, in the interest of obtaining a specific answer to my inquiry, I will do as you request.
------------------------
Let's see what she says.
8 comments:
You know perfectly well she will not reply to you, David. There is not a shred of proof in ANY of the historical writings of the Founders that supports her spurious claim. She feels citing a flawed court case in which not a shred of evidence was presented to support the majority view somehow equates to answering your question. Do you really expect her to have the integrity to say she was wrong?
First off, Mrs. Letellier had one original point: She believed that the article, being written by a member of the NRA was biased, and merely asked for an unbiased opinion on the matter. So, how about you stop being “nonresponsive” to her specific point. Can you do this? Yes or no?
You respond to her originally letter claiming that “You [Letellier] have publicly made a remarkable claim that refutes the leading authorities on the subject.” Now, I believe that she is right in her claim that Federal Judges and Federal Courts are the leading authorities on the subject. Now, if I am not mistaken (and by all means, tell me if I am), this issue is highly debated among the leading authorities. Therefore, she cannot refute the leading authorities on the subject (as in a collective, as you make it out to be). She can merely refute some, and support other leading authorites. Now, what is the point of this? You state “I did not ask you about Silveira. I did you [sic--my bad--it was late] ask you about English law in 1328.” Mrs. Letellier was merely enlightening you that she was not refuting the leading authorities, and therefore showing that your claim against her was not fully correct.
In closing, and I realize I did not form a fully closing argument, nor a full argument in my opinon ( Spare me, I have little time to do such tedious tasks as teach you respect for others), I would like to point out a few things.
1)Mrs. Letellier has not posted quotes from the founding fathers. I am not blind, and I realize this.
2)Mrs. Letellier seems to have only one point: That the article in the newspaper was biased. She cares little about your opinions I’m sure, just as you seem to care little about hers.
3)I am in support of my right to own a gun.
4)You are asking her to respond to your point, that you would like a quote, but you still have not responded to her point, that the article was biased. Therefore, you either did not realize that was the intention of her letter (even though it is stated several times) or you are too caught up in this and are a hypocrite.
5)I happen to think it would show more integrity for her to stop now. After all, it would be more respectful for her not to push her opinions onto you.
6)Now, finally, I’m pointing out that Nicki is using a logical fallacy. This particular one is the “ad hominem” fallacy. Instead of attacking the argument, Nicki is attacking the person. Therefore, I request that she makes an argument, or does not respond.
Hmmm… I cannot wait to be flamed for this. But I did what I thought was right. Plus, I’m a busy person, and (Mrs. Letellier, I urge you to do this as well) shall not waste further time responding to said “flames.”
Cool Andrew, a non-response to a non-response.Ooops! Didn't mean to flame you, flamer. Ooops! Did it again. But seriously, don't you ever get tired of obfuscating and lying? Like Ms. L. does when she is beating one of those hasty retreats, unable it seems, to come to come to grips with the truth. All that knowledge, and no integrity. That's why I could never understand communism. Can't understand why a rational person would want to lie for a living.
There are no quotes by the founding fathers that support a "collective" right to keep and bear arms. Don't expect to get any from her, because they don't exist.
Andrew, I did not take exception to any points Ms. Letellier made (although I could have)except the one about having quotes from the Founders. That is the only point of my letter to her.
This has nothing to do with debate by anyone outside of the Founding era that I cited in my Halbrook reference. By "leading authorities on the subject," the reference was clearly to those authorities who have been able to produce actual quotes from the Founders. Get it?
Yes, absolutely, I will stipulate that an editorial by an NRA representative is going to be...um...an editorial.
As for you teaching me respect for anything, I think your own words and approach speak volumes as to your qualifications.
But enough troll feeding.
Produce the quotes or don't--but enough bait and switch subject- changing. A specific public claim was made. It's time to put up or shut up.
Why would the founding fathers find it necessary to declare a "collective" right to bear arms? Would any sane person believe that a country would NOT have an armed military? This would be akin to saying "Oh yes, we have a right to keep an army, and it will be armed." Poppycock.
It never fails to bemuse me when people take offense where no offense was presented or intended, and with a flurry of ad hominem abuse and disrespect, demand respect and courtesy.
This, I find, is the hallmark of the Great American Liberal.
Benson: "Why would the founding fathers find it necessary to declare a "collective" right to bear arms? Would any sane person believe that a country would NOT have an armed military?"
Second question first: yes. First question: they found it necessary because the u.S. government is one on enumerated powers (not rights). See u.S. constitution Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 13 and 14.
... Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To ...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
...
Notice that the Army can only exist if the next congress to be elected votes to continue the money to support it. The Navy can receive appropriations with a longer term.
The existance of the entire u.S. military, excepting the Navy, is literally only one election away from annihilation at all times. (Perhaps expiration is a better word?)
Post a Comment