Page 47 of 64 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #461
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    \
    The fact that you cannot cite a single restriction on the right to arms based on your silly argument is proof of the silliness of that argument.
    The fact that this request results in nothing but the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy, demonstrates that you position has no merit.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #462
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The fact that this request results in nothing but the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy, demonstrates that you position has no merit.
    Captain if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not be (in your view) a clear violation of the 9th Amendment. (i.e. reading the "right to keep and bear arms" as a right for the government to regulate usage,....) Could you please provide an example of what you WOULD accept as a clear violation of the 9th Amendment?

    Reminder; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." -- 9th Amendment

  3. #463
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Captain if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not be (in your view) a clear violation of the 9th Amendment. (i.e. reading the "right to keep and bear arms" as a right for the government to regulate usage,....) Could you please provide an example of what you WOULD accept as a clear violation of the 9th Amendment?

    Reminder; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." -- 9th Amendment
    I don't see anything as a CLEAR violation of the 9th Amendment, as the 9th Amendment is completely arbitrary. I like what Robert Bork said about it, indicating that it's meaning is indeterminate. It's more of a truism or a way to understand the Constitution, than a right or law.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #464
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Captain if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not be (in your view) a clear violation of the 9th Amendment. (i.e. reading the "right to keep and bear arms" as a right for the government to regulate usage,....) Could you please provide an example of what you WOULD accept as a clear violation of the 9th Amendment?

    Reminder; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.." -- 9th Amendment
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I don't see anything as a CLEAR violation of the 9th Amendment, as the 9th Amendment is completely arbitrary. I like what Robert Bork said about it, indicating that it's meaning is indeterminate. It's more of a truism or a way to understand the Constitution, than a right or law.
    Riiiight.

    So, do you find it acceptable to use the enumeration of certain rights stated in the Constitution,.... to deny and or disparage other rights retained by the people?

    Note also the 10th Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    Translation; "If it hasn't been specifically stated in the Constitutions,.... if it's ambiguous,.... you are to err in favor of "the people."

  5. #465
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Riiiight.

    So, do you find it acceptable to use the enumeration of certain rights stated in the Constitution,.... to deny and or disparage other rights retained by the people?

    Note also the 10th Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    Translation; "If it hasn't been specifically stated in the Constitutions,.... if it's ambiguous,.... you are to err in favor of "the people."
    And Bork,... is not the last word on any of it.

    Is he.

  6. #466
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Riiiight.

    So, do you find it acceptable to use the enumeration of certain rights stated in the Constitution,.... to deny and or disparage other rights retained by the people?
    The rights identifed in the Constitution take precidence, of course. This is clearly stated in the 10th Amendment. Since the 9th is completely unclear in what those other rights are, I err on the side of clarity.

    Note also the 10th Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    Translation; "If it hasn't been specifically stated in the Constitutions,.... if it's ambiguous,.... you are to err in favor of "the people."
    Very rarely has any law been declared unconstitutional based on 10th Amendment grounds. In general, from historical context, the 10th Amendment has been seen as nothing more than a statement indicating the relationship between the federal government and the states. United States v. Darby affirmed this. In the unanimous decision, Justice Stone stated:
    Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which provides: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IV id. 140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, secs. 1907, 1908.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    So, no, the 10th.. nor the 9th Amendment have an impact on my position.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #467
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    And Bork,... is not the last word on any of it.

    Is he.
    Didn't say he was. There were plenty who agreed with my position on this. Bork's comments were the most concise.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #468
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The rights identifed in the Constitution take precidence, of course. This is clearly stated in the 10th Amendment. Since the 9th is completely unclear in what those other rights are, I err on the side of clarity.



    Very rarely has any law been declared unconstitutional based on 10th Amendment grounds. In general, from historical context, the 10th Amendment has been seen as nothing more than a statement indicating the relationship between the federal government and the states. United States v. Darby affirmed this. In the unanimous decision, Justice Stone stated:


    So, no, the 10th.. nor the 9th Amendment have an impact on my position.
    Thank you.

    Nothing further your honor,....

    I rest my case.

  9. #469
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Two reasons. Firstly, it is completely logical in keeping with a strictly literalist position of the Constitution. Secondly, it is completely logical in keeping with a strictly literalist position of the Constitution.



    I can show you quotes from Hamilton that oppose Jefferson's perception. He believed that the Constitution needed to evolve.


    Yet the fact that this is NOT written in the 2nd Amendment either indicates that the 2nd is more narrow than what Jefferson says, or can be more loosely construed. If we look at this from an originist standpoint, I think the first possibility is more likely.




    Very true. But still not in the 2nd Amendment.




    Adams along with Hamilton is probably my favorite founding father. Similar to what I said about Jefferson, though, either this was not included in the 2nd to narrowly construe it and accentuate the importance of the possessing of arms to prevent government tyranny, or to leave it open to interpretation for future generations. Remember, the Federalists did not want the Bill of Rights included, as they felt this could be too narrow and lead to government tyranny. Since many of them worked on the Constitution, it is conceivable that their wording was left vague to prevent these kinds of abuses and to allow for future issues to be included.




    Look at what I placed in bold. Washington gets it. It is not use that causes the restriction of government tyranny. It is their PRECENCE. Action is irrelevant, since by the time action is taken, tryanny has already occurred. The founders wanted the 2nd Amendment to PREVENT tyranny, not to stop it. That is why carry and possess is there, and use is not.




    Actually, my position is quite literally what the Constitution says, and since the original intent of the 2nd was to prevent government tyranny... and as I am often told by those who are pro-2nd Amendment... without the 2nd, the 1st cannot be defended, the 2nd is a preventative measure. My assessment is not only on target via originalist interpretation (which isn't actually interpretation at all), but it is also on target for the basic tenet of the Amendment itself. Anything veerring from this is interpretation and implication and does not adhere to a constructionist position.
    Sigh. Your position is not in accord with many Framer's statements regarding their view of the right to bear arms, semantics and willful stubborness aside.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #470
    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 Goshin View Post
    Sigh. Your position is not in accord with many Framer's statements regarding their view of the right to bear arms, semantics and willful stubborness aside.
    You can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that CC has presented to the contrary. If you think that the Framers' original intent for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the right to shoot beer cans off a fence from federal encroachment, please provide some evidence for this position. I'd love to see it.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-03-10 at 09:57 PM.

Page 47 of 64 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... 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
  •