Page 17 of 64 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #161
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I am not lying, and I do not think you are, either. One of us is mistaken, though, and I haven't see you provide any compelling historical information on how the Second Amendment ought to be interpreted. Tell me, if the second amendment was not intended as collective, what are we to make of the militia clause? Is it just fluff?
    Why don't you read Heller and then explain, in supported detail, how the court's explanation of the 'militia clause' is wrong?

    Why dont you then show us exactly who among the people that wrote and ratified the amendment, and with what terms, argued that the intent was to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right?

  2. #162
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Reakky? Show where, before the mid 20th centuryt, that the right to keep and bear arms was meaningfully held as a collective right to the exclusion of the individual right.
    It's as simple as reading the text of the Second Amendment. The "well regulated militia" part. But it is also supported by looking to the various arms and militia clauses of state constitutions prior to the drafting of the Constitution. From a historical perspective there is really no serious debate about the collective right created by the Second Amendment, only in the bizzarro world of so-called originalist judges trying to rationalize an expansion of rights with an untenable philosophy does such a question exist. Why so eager to defend hypocrisy, Goobie?


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This isnt a rebuttal or a refutation of the argument made by the SCotUS, this is an unsupported optinion piece.
    Try again.
    You should probably read Heller, and then you will realize how wrong you are to say that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If this were true, then you could actually show this to be the case, with ease.
    So, get busy showing that the original intent of the people that wrote the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.
    What you're asking for takes time, so if you'll cease the ambush tactics I'd be happy to get back to you. I don't see any reason why we have to be so antagonistic about this, since we're on the same side. Why not work collaboratively? If I am wrong I will be only too glad to concede. The trouble is I am right.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-29-10 at 01:13 PM.

  3. #163
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    It's as simple as reading the text of the Second Amendment.
    Translation:
    You know you cannot show where anyone intended what you say was intended, and thus cannot support your argument that the 2nd was intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right.
    Thanks for playing, sport.

  4. #164
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Why don't you read Heller and then explain, in supported detail, how the court's explanation of the 'militia clause' is wrong?

    Why dont you then show us exactly who among the people that wrote and ratified the amendment, and with what terms, argued that the intent was to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right?
    Gladly, but it will take a while. Give me an hour or so, is that fair?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Translation:
    You know you cannot show where anyone intended what you say was intended, and thus cannot support your argument that the 2nd was intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right.
    Thanks for playing, sport.
    You chopped off the last bit. That's disingenuous. The "comparison to other state constitutions of the time" is significant. Or perhaps you wrote that before my edit?

    The point is, there is no reason to be butting heads about it. Assume for a minute that I am right, and the original intent was to create a collective right, would you not want to acknowledge that, and go from there?
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-29-10 at 01:17 PM.

  5. #165
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Gladly, but it will take a while. Give me an hour or so, is that fair?
    I'm so sure that you cannot do it, I will give you 24 hours.

  6. #166
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I'm so sure that you cannot do it, I will give you 24 hours.
    Thanks for being a gentleman. I'll be back.

  7. #167
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Federalist 46 kind of proves that the 2nd amendment was designed to create a collective benefit from the individual right to bare arms.

    Madison authored both teh amendment and federalist 46:

    The Federalist #46

    The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
    Kind of hard to argue for an intended collective right when the author of the amendement has, himself, indicated it was a right of the people that was coupled with the existence of subordinate governments, not defined by them.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #168
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Why so touchy? A firearm is a deadly weapon, and thus a finger print search is reasonably warranted under the fourth amendment. Moreover, a fingerprint search does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms, so no right is lost there either. Going to a church, free association, no of that is potentially deadly, speech and no search is reasonable. However, things like "running your mouth" as you put it can require a search or a permit or some such depending on the time place and manner. This is a little more complicated than you make it out to be, and the oversimpiification is obscure the larger issue, and imputing constitutional violations where there are none.
    It's not touchy, I was asking you a question. You seem to believe that the mere exercise of one RIGHT is enough to infringe upon another. There are lots of dangerous things out there, but we can't move until something happens. Documenting people to exercise a right, that's pretty damned sick. A right is a right, it means you possess it, it means the government can't take it, it's innately yours and above the government. You can exercise it at your discretion. The only requirement is that you do not infringe upon the rights of others. And even then, you can't pre-punish someone for exercising a right. We're reactive, not proactive. The mere exercise of a right cannot cause "reasonable" suspicion for a search. It's a right and you're free to exercise it without government interference, without punishment. That's what a right is.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #169
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    You chopped off the last bit. That's disingenuous. The "comparison to other state constitutions of the time" is significant.
    Its not significant until you show that it, somehow, supports your claim regarding original intent of the peopel that wrote and ratified the 2nd.

    The point is, there is no reason to be butting heads about it.
    And yet, you continue to do so, without so much as a shred of support for your claims.

  10. #170
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Federalist 46 kind of proves that the 2nd amendment was designed to create a collective benefit from the individual right to bare arms.
    This is exactly correct.

Page 17 of 64 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •