Page 19 of 64 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #181
    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
    Glad to see you can admit when you are wrong.
    Naturally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And, when you read Heller, you'll see that the court took this into consideration, at length.


    The collective right to self-defense is necessarily based upon and linked to the individual right to self-defense, as a collection of individuals cannot have a right that each of the individuals of that collective do not individuallty have, seperate from that collective.
    I don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent. What you're engaging in in the above reasoning, just as Scalia did in Heller (which I have read) is the same sort of "activism" that Scalia so often decries (when it leads to conclusions that he doesn't support politically, that is). I don't have any other problem with your reasoning than the fact that it is ahistorical. The right to bear arms in self defense just isn't there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Not in any way.
    Uh, you got some sort of argument for that?

  2. #182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Naturally.


    I don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent. What you're engaging in in the above reasoning, just as Scalia did in Heller (which I have read) is the same sort of "activism" that Scalia so often decries (when it leads to conclusions that he doesn't support politically, that is). I don't have any other problem with your reasoning than the fact that it is ahistorical. The right to bear arms in self defense just isn't there.


    Uh, you got some sort of argument for that?
    The right to bear arms in self defense is not there in actual words but the right to self defense is a well established legal doctrine in every state. We don't need a gun for self defense but it helps.

  3. #183
    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 LiberalAvenger View Post
    The right to bear arms in self defense is not there in actual words but the right to self defense is a well established legal doctrine in every state. We don't need a gun for self defense but it helps.
    Do you have anything to back this up? Self-defense as a "right" is different from self defense as an affirmative defense to a crime. Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.

  4. #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Do you have anything to back this up? Self-defense as a "right" is different from self defense as an affirmative defense to a crime. Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.
    Ay carumba, please no more semantics.

  5. #185
    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 don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent.
    Ok then...

    You said:
    Simply put, the original intent of the second amendment was to create a right of the people (individually) to keep and bear arms in defense of liberty against tyranny, a right that existed as against Congress. It was not intended to create an individual right to self-defense, hunting or other sport, etc
    -Show- that the intention was to protect the right to arms for the defense of the collective to the full exclusion of the right to arms for the defense of the individual -- that is, that the full intent was to protect the right of the people to bear arms collectively for the defense of their state, counties and towns, but not at all for the individual defense of their farms, their houses, their families or themselves.

    You have already agreed that my argument that necessarily links a collective right to an individual right is logically sound and that you do not have an issue with said reasonong; to prove the above you will, necessarily, have to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a presmise that, essentailly, does not make sense.

  6. #186
    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 LiberalAvenger View Post
    Ay carumba, please no more semantics.
    What you dismiss as "semantics" is the very essence of this discussion, LA. Let me emphasize that I am also arguing in favor of an individual right to bear arms in self defense. But this difference between myself and Scalia is that I am concerned about maintaining intellectual integrity while I do this. The only way to accomplish a robust second amendment that unequivocally protects an individual right to bear arms for purposes other than militia-service is to expand the nature of the second amendment by means of "judicial activism" or else enact a new constitutional amendment to that effect.

  7. #187
    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
    Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.
    Nor was the 1st or 4th or 5th or 6th or...
    The 14th changed all that, and the decision here incorporates the 2nd against the states just as prior decisions incorporated the other amendments.

  8. #188
    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
    Ok then...

    You said:

    -Show- that the intention was to protect the right to arms for the defense of the collective to the full exclusion of the right to arms for the defense of the individual -- that is, that the full intent was to protect the right of the people to bear arms collectively for the defense of their state, counties and towns, but not at all for the individual defense of their farms, their houses, their families or themselves.

    You have already agreed that my argument that necessarily links a collective right to an individual right is logically sound and that you do not have an issue with said reasonong; to prove the above you will, necessarily, have to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a presmise that, essentailly, does not make sense.
    Goobie, I'm working on it, research takes time. I thought you already agreed to cease the gotcha-debate stuff and give me 24 hours.

  9. #189
    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
    Nor was the 1st or 4th or 5th or 6th or...
    The 14th changed all that, and the decision here incorporates the 2nd against the states just as prior decisions incorporated the other amendments.
    You're right the 14th did change all that, but are we talking about the "original intent" or not? You need to marshall your argument better, because it is in danger of becoming incoherent.

  10. #190
    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're right the 14th did change all that, but are we talking about the "original intent" or not?
    The point is that since the constitution was actually changed by the 14th amendment, the origiinal intent for the BoR to apply only to the actions of federal government is meaningless, just as it is when considering any other part of the constitution that was changed thru the amendment process.

    No one holds the position that original intent superceeds subsequent amendments.

Page 19 of 64 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... 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
  •