Page 49 of 64 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #481
    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 can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch,...
    Speaking of which.... its been 4 days and you have STILL not supplied any meaningful evidence that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so with the full intention to protect the collective exercise of the right to the full exception of the individual right to exercise said right.

    What's the matter -- can't bring yourself to admit you're wrong?

  2. #482
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    again the issue isn't what the government DOES but what it properly should be able to do
    Well, if that's what you're concerned about then you should be able to acknowledge that the second amendment creates no absolute right to gun ownership but one that is tied to militia service. The federal government has no authority to regulate guns except in DC where it can regulate as it sees fit subject only to the second amendment (which, on an originalist reading, protects only use for militia service), thus we see Heller is not originalist in any way. Moreover, on an originalist reading, the States have absolute authority to regulate gun ownership in-state, even if the commerce clause is read on a strict construction. Even post incorporation the states, like the federal government in DC, is curtailed only from infringing on the militia use of guns (nothing wrong with regulating it, of course), nothing more. There is no right protecting self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, or anything of the sort, and if the state wanted to make a law saying guns could only be used in the militia no honest originalist can say boo about it.

    Now, that's if we're only concerned about originalism, and the original intent good bit more restrictive than a lot of the NRA literature will have you believe. For those of us who live in the real world, we recognize that the commerce clause has been expanded a great deal from its original meaning, and encompasses the regulation of guns traveling across state lines.

  3. #483
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    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.


    I've provided tons of evidence of the Framer's intentions, which you have steadfastly ignored and continue to ignore.

    Frankly you don't appear to be here for honest debate at all, and simply look more and more like a troll who posts unsupported opinions as if they were fact, over and over, ignoring anything that shoots down your position.

    I have a policy about not feeding trolls.

    But since you seem to just ignore facts, lets have them again:

    What the Founders of the US said about guns:

    Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
    inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
    better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
    may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
    Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

    John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
    defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
    people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
    99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
    atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
    we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

    George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
    Debates at 380)

    Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
    almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
    Chronicle.)

    Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
    334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

    James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
    other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
    On what is the militia:


    George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
    Debates, 425-426)

    Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
    include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

    James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
    best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
    emphasis added.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
    standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
    does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
    to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
    militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
    by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
    but not from the second amendment.

    Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

    Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
    of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
    (Federalist Paper #29)

    "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
    and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
    something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
    is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)


    FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

    Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
    States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth
    of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

    Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
    Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
    who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
    to be masters." (Source still being sought)

    Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
    back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
    and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
    [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
    William Johnson)
    Last edited by Goshin; 07-04-10 at 12:00 AM.

    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.'.."

  4. #484
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Well, if that's what you're concerned about then you should be able to acknowledge that the second amendment creates no absolute right to gun ownership but one that is tied to militia service. The federal government has no authority to regulate guns except in DC where it can regulate as it sees fit subject only to the second amendment (which, on an originalist reading, protects only use for militia service), thus we see Heller is not originalist in any way. Moreover, on an originalist reading, the States have absolute authority to regulate gun ownership in-state, even if the commerce clause is read on a strict construction. Even post incorporation the states, like the federal government in DC, is curtailed only from infringing on the militia use of guns (nothing wrong with regulating it, of course), nothing more. There is no right protecting self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, or anything of the sort, and if the state wanted to make a law saying guns could only be used in the militia no honest originalist can say boo about it.

    Now, that's if we're only concerned about originalism, and the original intent good bit more restrictive than a lot of the NRA literature will have you believe. For those of us who live in the real world, we recognize that the commerce clause has been expanded a great deal from its original meaning, and encompasses the regulation of guns traveling across state lines.
    You are absolutely right

    under Cruikshank (a USSC case that anti gun judges butchered in subsequent appellate decisions) the USSC held that the second amendment CREATED NO RIGHTs

    IT MERELY ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS THAT EXISTED PRIOR to the creation of the USSC and would exist even if the USSC disappeared.

    we realize that the dems have bastardized the constitution with their improper expansion of the commerce clause and sadly the court didn't have the balls to strike that crap down when it started

    but I see that tortured interpretation starting to wane. Lopez was the first blow



  5. #485
    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
    Well, if that's what you're concerned about then you should be able to acknowledge that the second amendment creates no absolute right to gun ownership but one that is tied to militia service.
    This statement is patently false, as none of our rights are created by any of the amendments.
    Past that, it is impossible for you to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd intended that the "right of the people" had to be exercised in conjunction with service in the militia for the protections of the 2nd to apply.

    The federal government has no authority to regulate guns except in DC where it can regulate as it sees fit subject only to the second amendment (which, on an originalist reading, protects only use for militia service),
    As noted above, your (statement) is impossiblee to support.

    thus we see Heller is not originalist in any way.
    Except, of course, that you cannot show that your premise for this statement is sound, as noted above.

    Even post incorporation the states, like the federal government in DC, is curtailed only from infringing on the militia use of guns
    Heller says otherwise.

    There is no right protecting self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, or anything of the sort, and if the state wanted to make a law saying guns could only be used in the militia no honest originalist can say boo about it.
    As already noted three times -- this statement is impossible to support.

    Now, you can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch,...

  6. #486
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This statement is patently false, as none of our rights are created by any of the amendments.
    Past that, it is impossible for you to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd intended that the "right of the people" had to be exercised in conjunction with service in the militia for the protections of the 2nd to apply.


    As noted above, your (statement) is impossiblee to support.


    Except, of course, that you cannot show that your premise for this statement is sound, as noted above.


    Heller says otherwise.


    As already noted three times -- this statement is impossible to support.

    Now, you can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch,...

    He hasn't supported anything, he just keeps repeating the same crap with no facts to back it up.

    I'm about ready to designate target "Troll" and call for a fire mission from the Ignore Cannon. There's no point in debating someone who is impervious to facts.

    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.'.."

  7. #487
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    we realize that the dems have bastardized the constitution with their improper expansion of the commerce clause and sadly the court didn't have the balls to strike that crap down when it started

    but I see that tortured interpretation starting to wane. Lopez was the first blow
    See, I can respect where you're coming from, this is a principled stance in favor of originalism, but it also entails a real change in the law of this country as it is currently practiced. Almost a revolution; as you say, "Lopez was the first blow." Even if we were to start today applying real originalism (whatever that is) stare decisis dictates that we must work within the interpretivist framework that currently exists.

    Maybe I'm a cynic, but I see originalism or "textualism" or "strict constructionism" as a futile and even self defeating philosophy, anyway. Interpretivism is a fact of life, whether its Ginsberg or Scalia, they're going to be applying their opinions to cases.

    I don't mean this in a general, Legal Realist sort of way, but in a very visceral, partisan way (just look at Bush v. Gore to see how partisan the court can get, on both sides). The big advantage Ginsberg has on Scalia is that she is not burdened by a philosophy that is at odds with the agenda she advances. Scalia is often in the awkward position where he has to reconcile his originalism in order to expedite a right-wing end, and Heller and McDonald are just continuing the same sort of interpretive jurisprudence, expanding the second amendment just like the "bastardized the constitution" you're talking about expands the commerce clause.

    Just as the outcome of the commerce clause would have been different if the Court had been strictly originalist in its jurisprudence, so too would Heller and McDonald have been radically different if Scalia had practiced real originalism rather than couching interpretivism in originalist rhetoric. And I would argue that gun rights would be on more solid footing if Heller and McDonald were rooted in unassailable interpretivist logic (a la Brown v. Board of Education) rather than and pseudo-originalism that was open to left wing attack.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-04-10 at 12:39 AM.

  8. #488
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    See, I can respect where you're coming from, this is a principled stance in favor of originalism. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I see originalism or "textualism" or "strict constructionism" as a futile and even self defeating philosophy. Interpretivism is a fact of life, whether its Ginsberg or Scalia, they're going to be applying their opinions to cases. I don't mean this in a general, Legal Realist sort of way, but in a very visceral, partisan way (just look at Bush v. Gore to see how partisan the court can get, on both sides). But the big advantage Ginsberg has on Scalia is that she is not suffering for an incoherent philosophy when she advances her agenda. Heller and McDonald are just continuing the same sort of interpretive jurisprudence, expanding the second amendment just like the "bastardized the constitution" you're talking about expands the commerce clause. Just as the outcome of the commerce clause would have been different if the Court had been strictly originalist in its jurisprudence, so too would Heller and McDonald have been radically different. But even if we were to start today applying real originalism (whatever that is) stare decisis dictates that we must work within the interpretivist framework that currently exists.

    To adhere to this line of thinking would be to say that Brown v. Board, or Dred Scott would still be in force....That is lunacy.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #489
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    See, I can respect where you're coming from, this is a principled stance in favor of originalism, but it also entails a real change in the law of this country as it is currently practiced. Almost a revolution; as you say, "Lopez was the first blow."

    Maybe I'm a cynic, but I see originalism or "textualism" or "strict constructionism" as a futile and even self defeating philosophy. Interpretivism is a fact of life, whether its Ginsberg or Scalia, they're going to be applying their opinions to cases.

    I don't mean this in a general, Legal Realist sort of way, but in a very visceral, partisan way (just look at Bush v. Gore to see how partisan the court can get, on both sides). The big advantage Ginsberg has on Scalia is that she is not suffering for an incoherent philosophy when she advances her agenda. Heller and McDonald are just continuing the same sort of interpretive jurisprudence, expanding the second amendment just like the "bastardized the constitution" you're talking about expands the commerce clause.

    Just as the outcome of the commerce clause would have been different if the Court had been strictly originalist in its jurisprudence, so too would Heller and McDonald have been radically different. But even if we were to start today applying real originalism (whatever that is) stare decisis dictates that we must work within the interpretivist framework that currently exists.
    heller expanded nothing

    Heller was way too restrictive

    A proper decision would have held that the federal government has no ability to regulate small arms at all



  10. #490
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    heller expanded nothing

    Heller was way too restrictive

    A proper decision would have held that the federal government has no ability to regulate small arms at all
    Ok, you got me there. Heller was bad originalism though, even if it didn't expand anything. And McDonald was a huge expansion of federal power at the expense of states rights.

Page 49 of 64 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... 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
  •