Sorry for my tardiness in my remarks here, I had to drive slowly to get home because of the buzz and subsequent raging hangover I had from the fumes coming off dude referenced above
First off, very nice to meet some fellow INGO'ers and put faces to aliases.
I guess in the end, I, like Hammerhead, was not so much surprised with the content of the debate so much as the lack of "heat" - no one freaked out.
Not as much
as I'd anticipated. All-in-all, very much worth the time, and if they ever decided to do it again I'd definitely attend - in fact, I hope it repeats and is expanded a bit for time. 2A debate tends to drift into other political debate so the added time is valuable both for that, and to get back on track.
I would say this was where I found myself left hanging - I wanted to get a frame of reference for how this is possible... how do we go from 2A's "... shall not be infringed." to having gun control, restrictions, licensing to posess/carry/etc... how was that gap bridged?
Yes, he noted that IN case law views driving as a "right" after your licensed - i.e. you must get a license to acquire the right. Is the converse not true? I do NOT have the right until I have the license? Seems to be the case...
OK (not), then how do you explain how I must then be licensed to exercise/assert a right given to me at both a federal constitutional and state constitutional level - if I already have the right, why do I then need a license? This is backwards from above...
Inconsistency in the law is a huge problem.
I was left wanting in this area - I suspect that our hosts desire to remain "in the middle" and not inject his personal views somehow played into him shying away from this - tho, I'm just now sure how... or maybe it was a time constraint.
Gentlemen, if there is a next-time, I promise... I will bring
