Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93

Thread: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

  1. #71
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,554

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post



    It's been a long time since I encountered someone this delusional, and the last time I did so, the other person had yet to reach their 18th birthday. You come into a thread to start an argument completely unrelated to the thread, accuse me of dishonesty when I CLEARLY was willing to use any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in my point, falsely accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy and then have the audacity to whine when your troll card is called.
    I have not "whined" even once. You, however, have lied repeatedly, and you're still doing it.

    What I did was point out your question-begging and erroneous, dishonest interpretation of the 2A. And yes, indeed, you did beg the question. Which is related entirely to the way you choose to argue in this thread.

    If you don't want to have your weaknesses pointed out, there are plenty of sites where you can post and everyone will agree with you in lock step. This isn't one.


    It's clear you are not interested in any reasonable or rational discussion. The sad thing is you're obviously more intelligent than MMC, and yet you'd rather act in such a silly manner, using childish insults which have been clearly proven untrue. Instead of wasting everyone's time acting like a child, how about you actually engage in the thread discussion? It seems far more productive than the two of us accusing each other of being dishonest. After all, while I am new here, the rules have made me believe this forum is more about mature debate and not about childish name-calling.
    Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. I called no "names." What I have said is 100% about what you posted. The one who's "acting like a child" is the one who is protesting way, way, way too much. (That's you.)


    So let's try this again. I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many others do as well.
    Your interpretation is wrong in every way it can be wrong. This is a matter of historical, linguistic, and legal fact.

    But whether we use your interpretation or my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the question I originally asked, which is how the lawsuit in question is in violation of either interpretation. Now, do you have any opinions on that matter?
    It doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, nor do I care. What I cared about was your dishonestly-worded question. Which is the only thing I commented on, your dishonest attributions to me notwithstanding.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #72
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,981

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    If 40 or 50 leftwing mayors engaged in lawsuits against McDonalds for such actions then I would say yes.

    the dismissals had nothing to do with the second amendment but the lawsuits were clearly designed to interfere with the lawful ownership of firearms
    No, they weren't. If I'm not mistaken, the original case dealt with illegally purchased firearms.

    You would be wrong. You can look around the entire United states for decades and I doubt you will find someone who actually knows more about this subject than I do.
    Well, good then, you can explain it to me. What happened? How did this case come about? What exactly was Halligan's influence in all of it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I have not "whined" even once. You, however, have lied repeatedly, and you're still doing it.

    What I did was point out your question-begging and erroneous, dishonest interpretation of the 2A. And yes, indeed, you did beg the question. Which is related entirely to the way you choose to argue in this thread.

    If you don't want to have your weaknesses pointed out, there are plenty of sites where you can post and everyone will agree with you in lock step. This isn't one.




    Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. I called no "names." What I have said is 100% about what you posted. The one who's "acting like a child" is the one who is protesting way, way, way too much. (That's you.)




    Your interpretation is wrong in every way it can be wrong. This is a matter of historical, linguistic, and legal fact.


    Since you actually did comment on the thread right after all of this, I won't repeat myself for the third or fourth time. I disagree completely with you, and I have supported my argument with evidence, but it's obvious you aren't interested, so consider it dropped.

    It doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, nor do I care.
    Great. Thank you for your contribution.

    What I cared about was your dishonestly-worded question.
    Which I later was willing to amend, thus proving it was not intended to be dishonest in anyway. I have explained this, if you would actually care to take time to listen/comprehend.

  3. #73
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,554

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Since you actually did comment on the thread right after all of this, I won't repeat myself for the third or fourth time. I disagree completely with you, and I have supported my argument with evidence, but it's obvious you aren't interested, so consider it dropped.
    What "evidence"? Your erroneous pap about "hundreds of years" and "thousands of people" agreeing with you? That's not "evidence"; that's merely your claim -- and I already told you you're wrong on that, too, and chances are, you've never even bothered to look to see if you're right.

    Your interpretation, as I said earlier, did not exist in any written form before 1940. Mine goes all the way back to the founding of the country with the support of the men who did so. (MMC was kind enough to post a number of actual quotes to that effect.)

    Great. Thank you for your contribution.
    I post as I see fit; your "thanks" are neither necessary nor even appropriate.

    Which I later was willing to amend, thus proving it was not intended to be dishonest in anyway. I have explained this, if you would actually care to take time to listen/comprehend.
    Well, good for you. You were "willing" to back away from a dishonest question after pitching a fit about being called on it.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #74
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,651

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    the failed nominee attempted to advance a legal theory that gun makers, wholesalers and retailers of firearms should be held liable for ILLEGALLY owned handguns in the state of NY this attempt was based on Public Nuisance and did not attempt to prove that the makers (who can only sell to licensed wholesalers or dealers) actually provided handguns to any banned entity. this theory would hold makers and wholesalers liable for the illegal acts of third parties.

    For example, Halligan supported New York’s efforts to hold the manufacturers of handguns liable for criminal acts committed with handguns. Those lawsuits represented an activist effort to use the courts to solve a societal problem. When Congress was considering shutting those lawsuits down, Halligan gave a speech in which she noted how the “dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility,” a formulation that sounds like it’s from the living Constitution hymnal.


    The American Spectator : Caitlin Halligan Need Not Apply


    Halligan and the Second Amendment - By Gary Marx - Bench Memos - National Review Online



  5. #75
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,981

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    What "evidence"? Your erroneous pap about "hundreds of years" and "thousands of people" agreeing with you? That's not "evidence"; that's merely your claim -- and I already told you you're wrong on that, too, and chances are, you've never even bothered to look to see if you're right. Your interpretation, as I said earlier, did not exist in any written form before 1940. Mine goes all the way back to the founding of the country with the support of the men who did so. (MMC was kind enough to post a number of actual quotes to that effect.)
    "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." - Alexander Hamilton
    "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." - Thomas Jefferson
    "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." - Thomas Jefferson

    Obviously there are many quotes from our Founding Fathers on gun ownership (so there is no need for you to post others, I'll concede there will be quotes which cover many angles on the issue), but it's clear from the comments of these two, at the very least, there were people who believed in a well-regulated militia for the defense of our country.

    Quote Originally Posted by US vs. Cruikshank
    The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.
    Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

    From this, we can see the 2nd Amendment was NOT interpreted as an unabridged right to own any and all firearms a citizen wanted, it merely regulated the federal government. When we combine this with the previous statements, we can make the argument the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the federal government from limiting state governments to form their own militias. The idea the 2nd Amendment only limited the federal government (and did not mean universal rights to a gun) was furthered in Presser v. Illinois (and also in Miller v. Texas, though I'm only quoting one):

    We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
    So we've now established the belief in the existence of a trained and well-regulated militia for the defense of our country, and we have Supreme Court cases which show the intent of the 2nd Amendment (at the time of the rulings) was not about granting unabridged rights to own a gun, but rather to protect the concept of a militia from being undermined by the federal government.

    Which would make my original statement "a private citizen being able to own a gun for the purpose of assembling in a state militia for defense against foreign enemies" a rather valid interpretation, one which is supported by direct quotes from Founding Fathers and rulings in Supreme Court cases, and my claim of being supported by thousands of people (which can be found with a simple Google search, I'm sure) and hundreds of years much stronger.

    I post as I see fit; your "thanks" are neither necessary nor even appropriate.
    All the same, I thank you anyways.

    Well, good for you. You were "willing" to back away from a dishonest question after pitching a fit about being called on it.
    Untrue. The moment you lodged your complaint, I adjusted my question. Your first post to me was to accuse me of begging the question (which, by the way, begging the question is where you support your position by assuming to be true that which you are trying to prove to be true...asking how a lawsuit relates to the 2nd Amendment, regardless of whether you agree with my interpretation, could never be begging the question as I am not attempting to assert any position at the time of the question, but rather trying to understand how the two are related....as I said, I did not commit the fallacy. You MIGHT be able to assert I committed the fallacy of the loaded question, but loaded question is not the same thing as begging the question), and when I asked you to explain, it was then you explained how you took issue with my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The moment you did so, I was willing to reframe my question to fit any valid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    This will be my last post to you. I have attempted to regain some civility in our discussion, and you have not shown any intention to reciprocate. I hope I have now satisfied your desire for more concrete evidence (which was a fair criticism) of my interpretation and my claim, but if your posts towards me in this thread are an example of future postings from you, I will not expect you to like/agree/recognize them as valid. But I have grown weary of coming into a thread for an honest debate, and have my integrity attacked by someone who has already admitted no interest in discussing the topic. And to head off your next comment, I am not crying or whining nor will I post on other forums. I will simply ignore any further post from you which is made in the same aggressive manner your previous ones towards me have been. If you wish to discuss this topic in a mature fashion, I'll be happy to do so. But I will not engage any further in base 2nd Amendment arguments, nor will I reply to any other derogatory remarks.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    the failed nominee attempted to advance a legal theory that gun makers, wholesalers and retailers of firearms should be held liable for ILLEGALLY owned handguns in the state of NY this attempt was based on Public Nuisance and did not attempt to prove that the makers (who can only sell to licensed wholesalers or dealers) actually provided handguns to any banned entity. this theory would hold makers and wholesalers liable for the illegal acts of third parties.

    For example, Halligan supported New York’s efforts to hold the manufacturers of handguns liable for criminal acts committed with handguns. Those lawsuits represented an activist effort to use the courts to solve a societal problem. When Congress was considering shutting those lawsuits down, Halligan gave a speech in which she noted how the “dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility,” a formulation that sounds like it’s from the living Constitution hymnal.
    Nothing you've said here is any different than what I've already known. However, I am very curious about your statement of "Halligan supported New York’s efforts". How do you determine she supported this, as opposed to simply doing the job she was supposed to do. Furthermore, how does allowing gun manufacturers to be held liable affect the 2nd Amendment, regardless of the interpretation? The 2nd Amendment says nothing about gun manufacturers, it only discusses the rights of a citizen to own a gun.
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 03-24-13 at 01:29 AM.

  6. #76
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,554

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." - Alexander Hamilton
    "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." - Thomas Jefferson
    "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." - Thomas Jefferson

    Obviously there are many quotes from our Founding Fathers on gun ownership (so there is no need for you to post others, I'll concede there will be quotes which cover many angles on the issue), but it's clear from the comments of these two, at the very least, there were people who believed in a well-regulated militia for the defense of our country.
    Not one of those mentions the right to keep and bear arms, much less ties it only to use in the militia. The two are entirely distinct concepts.

    Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

    From this, we can see the 2nd Amendment was NOT interpreted as an unabridged right to own any and all firearms a citizen wanted, it merely regulated the federal government.
    The only thing the Court in Cruikshank said was that the 2A only applied to the federal government, as did every other article of the Bill of Rights before it specifically incorporated against the states. This is no more useful than saying the 1A mentions only what Congress may not do -- not states, not municipalities, only Congress. The rights to free speech, free press, and free exercise of religion are no more collectivized in the state than is the 2A.

    And to that end, the Court is saying that even though the right to keep and bear arms is protected against federal infringement, citizens can look to other sources for its protection when the state is the encroacher.

    Yours, of course, is a frequent dishonest reading of Cruikshank, but as you are hardly the first one to do so, I will not attribute that fault to you. You will not, however, find any such interpretation of Cruikshank prior to 1940. You will find it all over the Warin-based Circuit Courts Circle Jerk, however, which has happily been corrected by the Supreme Court.

    When we combine this with the previous statements
    The previous statements had nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and thus any "combining" is erroneous at best and simply dishonest at worst.

    we can make the argument the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the federal government from limiting state governments to form their own militias.
    And it's a silly, erroneous, and dishonest argument. But sure, you can make it.

    The idea the 2nd Amendment only limited the federal government (and did not mean universal rights to a gun) was furthered in Presser v. Illinois
    The problem is that the bolded part is completely fabricated. The court didn't say this. The court didn't NEED to say this to decide the case in front of it. This is pulled out of thin air.

    Presser involved ONLY the claim that men may join together, publicly, in paramilitary groups on their own volition and that the state couldn't interfere with it. That had nothing to do with the individual right to arms and most certainly did not establish that the right to arms exists only for the purpose of participation in a state militia. At most, it said the 2A doesn't keep a state from reserving to itself the only authority to create a militia, not that the right to arms is dependent on it.

    You are claiming things which simply aren't there.


    So we've now established the belief in the existence of a trained and well-regulated militia for the defense of our country, and we have Supreme Court cases which show the intent of the 2nd Amendment (at the time of the rulings) was not about granting unabridged rights to own a gun, but rather to protect the concept of a militia from being undermined by the federal government.

    Which would make my original statement "a private citizen being able to own a gun for the purpose of assembling in a state militia for defense against foreign enemies" a rather valid interpretation, one which is supported by direct quotes from Founding Fathers and rulings in Supreme Court cases, and my claim of being supported by thousands of people (which can be found with a simple Google search, I'm sure) and hundreds of years much stronger.
    Except, as I've point out, it's all bull****.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #77
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,654

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Feel better?
    Like I said, there are more similarities between tobacco and guns than differences. But mostly they are both products that when used as intended kill. I don't think such products should be given immunity from civil action.

  8. #78
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,654

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that's stupid. using a gun properly often preserves the life of the user.

    why should beretta be sued by assholes using public tax dollars when some gang banger shoots another gangbanger with a stolen beretta or maybe a Glock. You see, those assholes never proved any negligence by the makers nor did they demonstrate whose guns were "falling" into the wrong hands.
    I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But, I bet a good lawyer can come up with a reason and show negligence to a jury. Maybe a gun should have a code, like a PIN number lock, so that if its stolen it won't work. Or maybe it should have a sensor and microchip signaling that this isn't the proper owner, so when junior steals dad's guns he can't shoot up a school.

  9. #79
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,554

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Like I said, there are more similarities between tobacco and guns than differences.
    There are NO similarities between them other than they're both products which are sold. After that, there is zero commonality.

    But mostly they are both products that when used as intended kill.
    This is preposterous spin stretching for a "similarity" which doesn't exist.

    I don't think such products should be given immunity from civil action.
    And gun manufacturers are not immune from civil action due to their own negligence. You've already been told this; that you choose to ignore it is voluntary ignorance, which is the worst kind of ignorance.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #80
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,654

    Re: Obama Withdraws Judicial Nominee Blocked TWICE by Republicans.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    There are NO similarities between them other than they're both products which are sold. After that, there is zero commonality.
    Sure there are. You just refuse to see them.

    Cigarettes, a perfectly legal product that many people use for a variety of reasons, from easing socialization to providing therapeutic comfort, do not kill everyone who smokes, but they kill an amazingly large number of people who do, as well as those who live with them. The same can said for guns: they kill lots of people who own them as well those under their roof.

    This is preposterous spin stretching for a "similarity" which doesn't exist.
    Quite the oppostite. THe only real differences are one is addictive and the other is constitutionally protected.

    And gun manufacturers are not immune from civil action due to their own negligence. You've already been told this; that you choose to ignore it is voluntary ignorance, which is the worst kind of ignorance.
    If you put a product out there that does not have the safeguards installed that the manufacturer knows will make the product saver and guards again misuse, it could be argued that this is negligent. Try selling a car without seatbelts or a pack of cigarettes without the warning label.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 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
  •