Page 51 of 64 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #501
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    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.
    no more than the 14th was. Once the 14th amendment was ratified, McDonald should never have been necessary



  2. #502
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    I saw you in a movie some place

    Greetings from Humongus, THe Lord Humongus................

    How are the fingers?
    No, I am more like Gorgeous George.

  3. #503
    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 j-mac View Post
    Yeah, you're right....A few Lager's last night...heh, heh....However, there is no way to interpret the constitution other than through original intent, unless you have no regard for it in the first place.
    Haha, I hear ya, j-mac, it's easy enough to get stuff like that mixed up under normal conditions

    I'd say that Brown is a good example of what's wrong with originalism, though. If the Court had always to embraced originalism, Plessy wouldn't have been overturned by Brown. There's nothing in the Constitution that says what philosophy the Court has employ to determine its meaning. Indeed, the Court isn't even granted its power as the final word on Constitutional issues by the Constitution, this power comes from the interpretivist philosophy employed by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. If you really wanted to have law in this country that reflected the "original" meaning of the Constitution, it would mean radically changing the law in almost every aspect, and in a way that stare decisis would not permit.

  4. #504
    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
    no more than the 14th was. Once the 14th amendment was ratified, McDonald should never have been necessary
    So you're saying that the right-wing should fight interpretivist fire with fire? There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't originalism, just "reverse interpretivism."

  5. #505
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    So you're saying that the right-wing should fight interpretivist fire with fire? There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't originalism, just "reverse interpretivism."
    the fourteenth amendment was a properly ratified amendment to the constitution passed to prevent the racists in the south from denying the freedmen basic and fundamental liberties. amendment is a proper way to change the constitution.



  6. #506
    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
    amendment is a proper way to change the constitution.
    Sure, but that's neither here nor there. On the original intent of the 14th Amendment, it was not understood to incorporate the first or second amendments as against the states. It takes an interpretivist like Scalia in McDonald to reach that conclusion.

  7. #507
    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
    If you'd like to demonstrate the appeal to popularity logical fallacy, go ahead.
    Not all episodes where people vote on something or respond to a poll is an "appeal to popularity."

    But I can see how a loser would think it is or claim that it is.

  8. #508
    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 drz-400 View Post
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    necessary is stated right in the 2nd amendment.

    since you are an expert, what does a civilian use a light machine gun for other than maybe extremely expensive target practice? I have no idea why supresive fire would be needed in a self-defense or hunting situtation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    The "security of a free state" is a cause which is exponentially greater than the mere right of one person to defend him or herself.

    If the right to keep and bear arms was solely for an individual's right to defend themself,.... there would have been no need to specifically mention the "militia."
    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Ok, well we have a malitia, and its known as the state patrol and national gaurd. They all require training, aka they are well regulated. Why should we not require the same of every citizen if they want to use the same guns as the military.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    It seems you have a problem appreciating the composition of a Militia and what their purpose is.

    Indiana State Constitution; Article 12, section 1;

    "Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."

    Emphasis mine.

    Other States and codes have similar definitions.
    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    So what does that prove? Everyone over 17 can be part of a state malitia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Militia.

    M-I-litia.

    And what it proves is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms "for the security of a free State" is greater than the mere right for each and every citizen to defend themself individually.
    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Chuz, I gotta ask you though, if this were true why did the court just extend the second amendment to be encorporated into the bill of rights via the 14th amendment. To me it would seem you have this backwards.
    The first tem Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are already known as the "Bill of Rights."

    The court merely recognized the 2nd. Amendment. There was no need to use the 14th to extend it,... as (being number 2 of 10) it was already there.

  9. #509
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Sure, but that's neither here nor there. On the original intent of the 14th Amendment, it was not understood to incorporate the first or second amendments as against the states. It takes an interpretivist like Scalia in McDonald to reach that conclusion.
    really? you didn't read the comments at that time about how the remnants of the Confederacy were disarming the freedmen? You might read Associate Justice Thomas's comments to that fact in the McDonald decision.



  10. #510
    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
    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...
    Except, of course, that you cannot show that your premise for this statement is sound, as previously noted.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 07-04-10 at 03:16 PM.

Page 51 of 64 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... 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
  •