Page 58 of 64 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #571
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    One doesn't have to wonder, I'll tell one. If Gore had won I wouldn't feel this way because, the make up of the court being what it was, the evidence of partisanship wouldn't have been there. Likewise if even a single liberal justice had sided for Bush, then I wouldn't feel this way. Frankly, I haven't got a dog in that fight, it didn't matter to me one bit if Bush or Gore won (People forget back in those days the big criticism was that the two candidates were hardly any distinguishable). The scandal of Bush v. Gore has nothing to do with the parties and everything to do with the miscarriage of justice.



    Yeah, because we all know how liberal people are down in Florida...

    Really? so Mockery is all you have? "no dog in the fight" indeed....pshaw!


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

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #572
    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
    Really? so Mockery is all you have? "no dog in the fight" indeed....pshaw!
    So, what you're just ignoring my whole post? Remember when I said: "If Gore had won I wouldn't feel this way because, the make up of the court being what it was, the evidence of partisanship wouldn't have been there. Likewise if even a single liberal justice had sided for Bush, then I wouldn't feel this way."

    You can think what you like, but I don't like Bush and I don't like Gore and I wasn't rooting for either of them.

    And, if you think Florida's Supreme Court has some sort of "liberal bias" then you deserve all the eye-rolling you get!

  3. #573
    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
    Actually, I've gotta disagree with both of you. I'd say that the SCOTUS stole the election and handed it to Bush.
    Explain this. You may start by describing exactly how the 7-2 equal protection clause ruling was unsound.

  4. #574
    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 j-mac View Post
    Ok, explain to me then why Gore wouldn't concede to recounting ALL the votes? eh? Why only select districts that he was actively trying to either suppress the vote count, or those which he could gerrymander?

    j-mac
    Why would Gore not concede? Why should he concede. Do you know the definition of "concede"? That should answer your question.

  5. #575
    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 j-mac View Post
    Ok, explain to me then why Gore wouldn't concede to recounting ALL the votes? eh? Why only select districts that he was actively trying to either suppress the vote count, or those which he could gerrymander?

    j-mac
    Why would Gore not concede? Why should he concede? Do you know the definition of "concede"? That should answer your question.

  6. #576
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Who's talking about laws?

    I am talking about RIGHTS which predate the Constitution,.... not laws.

    And the Constitution did not, can not, was not intended to invalidate the rights of the people which predated the Constitution.

    In fact, (sans the Bill of Rights) is specifically established and put in place a system to defend those rights which predate the constitution itself.
    Whatever rights pre-date the Constitution are irrelevant to what happens IN the Constitution. You are arguing from a natural rights position. Natural rights do not exist. We are not "born" with any rights. We are born with desires and instincts. The Constitution identifies rights. Anything prior to it's writing, does not apply to it until it is in it.
    "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. #577
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    The right to keep and bear arms is not a tradition.

    It's a right that (according to the Constitution which you are trying to revere) "shall not be infringed".
    And I have no problem with that right.
    "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. #578
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It is not ambiguous at best, only so if you're trying to construct a silly reach around argument.
    Wrong. It IS ambiguous at best and research of the usage of the time indicated that. I'll post the information and my link, tonight, when I get home.

    The fact of the matter is that the purpose to keep and bear arms is to fight, there's little purpose in making it legal to "hold" a gun if the necessity is to fight foreign or domestic threats to our liberty.
    Irrevant to what is written. Unless you want to use interpretation.

    To continually say "well I looked into it, but it doesn't say you can use the gun" is abject stupidity and nothing more. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation.
    No, the reality is that you are pissed because your position doesn't hold water, unless you use interpretation... which then be hypocritical for you, considering your politics. If you want to be an originalist, then my position stands as accurate. If you want to interpret, than it doesn't. But that would mean you would have to admit, Ikari, that you are not the staunch originalist that you present yourself to be. And I know you don't like that.

    We had not long ago (in terms of the construction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) beaten the English and tried a form of government which had failed, so the founders needed a government with a slightly stronger central government, but that was also a danger. The 2nd is there to ensure the People have the proper tools to defend themselves should their lives and liberty be threatened by another source. They're not going to sit there and say "Oh...well you can hold a gun, but not fire it".
    Again, irrelevant to what is written and the common meaning of the phrase.

    No, as the purpose was duty to the militia, the People had need to operate their guns as well. As such, the definition of "to bear" includes the functional use of the tool in question. As the dictionary meaning of the word includes.

    Oxford English Dictionary Sign In
    4. In many phrases. a. to arms! (formerly [OFr.] as armes! at arms!): take to your arms, be ready for fight! b. in arms: armed, furnished with weapons, sword in hand, prepared to fight; as to rise in arms (of a number); up in arms, in active readiness to fight, actively engaged in struggle or rebellion; also fig. c. to take up arms: to arm oneself, rise in hostility defensive or offensive, to draw the sword; also fig. to bear arms: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. to turn one's arms against: to make war upon, attack. to lay down arms: to surrender, cease hostilities, give up the struggle.
    a. 1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. 162 Richard, ‘has armes!’ did crie. c1380 Sir Ferumb. 2933 ‘Asarmes!’ {th}anne cride Rolond, ‘asarmes, euerechon!’ c1450 Merlin xxii. 406 And ronne to armes moo than xxvii squyers. c1450 LONELICH Grail xiii. 231 Anon, ‘As Armez,’ they gonnen to crie. 1470-85 MALORY Arthur I. xi. (1634) 22 ‘Lords, at arms! for here be your enemies at your hand.’ 1711 POPE Rape Lock v. 37 To arms! to arms! the fierce Virago cries. 1842 MACAULAY Horatius xx, To arms! To arms! Sir Consul.
    b. 1503 HAWES Examp. Virtue vii. 97 Whan in armes..He all his ennemyes dyd abiecte. 1588 SHAKES. L.L.L. V. ii. 636 Heere comes Hector in Armes. 1593 {emem} 2 Hen. VI, IV. i. 93 Hating thee, and rising vp in armes. 1611 BIBLE 1 Macc. xii. 27 Ionathan commaunded his men..to be in armes. 1704 SWIFT T. Tub Apol., All the men of wit..were immediately up in Arms. 1810 SCOTT Lady of L. III. xiv, In arms the huts and hamlets rise. 1868 Digby's Voy. Medit. Pref. 32 As soon as the facts came to the knowledge of the Admiralty..Buckingham's Secretary was up in arms.
    c. 1297 R. GLOUC. 63 Alle {th}at armes bere A{ygh}en {th}e king. c1590 MARLOWE Massac. Paris III. i, The Guise hath taken arms against the King. 1602 SHAKES. Ham. III. i. 59 To take Armes against a Sea of troubles. 1769 ROBERTSON Charles V, V. III. 329 Obliged to take arms in self-defence. Ibid. V. IV. 410 He turned his arms against Naples. 1795 SEWELL Hist. Quakers I. Pref. 7 For bearing arms and resisting the wicked by fighting. 1831 BREWSTER Newton (1855) II. xiv. 2 Newton took up arms in his own cause. 1848 ST. JOHN Fr. Rev. 245 Lay down your arms. 1872 YEATS Growth Comm. 180


    This is consistent with every use of the word "arms", be it to lay down arms, take up arms, etc. that was used at the time. So you can stop with the little side show because it's so nonsensical it causes brain cells to commit suicide. Leave the little buggers alone, they're just trying to think.
    And nothing above proves me wrong... in fact, as one can see, there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity in the meaning. No, Ikari, from what is written, possessing and carrying would be how it is defined in a common way. Now, again, if you want to extrapolate further, fine. I would agree with that. But remember, you are then using interpretation, not being a staunch originalist.
    "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"

  9. #579
    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

    I'm going according to the definitions of the time and the intent of the 2nd amendment. The purpose to keep and bear arms, the necessity of the militia was to fight. And thus fighting was part of "to bear arms" as supported by the actual definition of "to bear arms".

    BTW, I have personally laid claim only to minarchism and the maximization of our rights and liberties. If you want to interpret that as "originalist" or "interpretist" (I may have just made those words up) that's up to you. I think there is a lot to learn from the founding fathers, particularly in the political philosophy and belief of natural rights which many of them upheld. But would an originalist support slavery?
    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."

  10. #580
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I'm going according to the definitions of the time and the intent of the 2nd amendment. The purpose to keep and bear arms, the necessity of the militia was to fight. And thus fighting was part of "to bear arms" as supported by the actual definition of "to bear arms".
    And according to the information I have read, it is ambiguous. The common usage was "to carry and possess"... yes, from the 18th Century. I'll post the link to my information, later... I don't have the link at work, and I don't have a whole lot of time to look for it.

    BTW, I have personally laid claim only to minarchism and the maximization of our rights and liberties. If you want to interpret that as "originalist" or "interpretist" (I may have just made those words up) that's up to you. I think there is a lot to learn from the founding fathers, particularly in the political philosophy and belief of natural rights which many of them upheld. But would an originalist support slavery?
    I would interpret that as being an originalist. And I agree that we can learn a lot about philosophy from the founders; I enjoy reading the Federaist Papers (I know... weird) and some of their discussions, but, so you know, I completely reject the concept of natural rights, so, I would imagine that you and I are going to have an impossible time agreeing on certain aspects of the Constitution.
    "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"

Page 58 of 64 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... 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
  •