View Poll Results: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 20.00%
  • No

    59 78.67%
  • Not sure

    1 1.33%
Page 66 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1656646566676876116 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #651
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    there was nothing to refute. You just make stuff up and do not support it
    yeah - you showed us how Reagan was a Democrat and I was wrong about him being a Republican.

    You showed us how Reagan never signed any gun control bills into law as I claimed he did.

    And then you provided evidence that he never supported or made statements supporting gun control laws.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #652
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    The silence from the defenders of Heller and Scalia in response to my post 609 where I quoted from Scalia and showed how he ignored his own evidence that he cited is deafening.



    Originally Posted by TurtleDude
    the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point

    the point is that Scalia was led by ideology and NOT by history or the Constitution or anything else. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller

    The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law 585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
    I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

    The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

    But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:

    The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.


    So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #653
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,733

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    yeah - you showed us how Reagan was a Democrat and I was wrong about him being a Republican.

    You showed us how Reagan never signed any gun control bills into law as I claimed he did.

    And then you provided evidence that he never supported or made statements supporting gun control laws.
    that's totally irrelevant. the issue is which party has raped the 2A

    its the Democrats.



  4. #654
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,733

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The silence from the defenders of Heller and Scalia in response to my post 609 where I quoted from Scalia and showed how he ignored his own evidence that he cited is deafening.
    Must suck to have lost that vote 5-4. what is bad is that there are four dishonest justices on the wrong side. Stevens' dissent was one of the most pathetic things I have ever read coming out of the USSC.



  5. #655
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that's totally irrelevant.

    No - it is relevant because it proves you are incorrect in your partisan claims.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #656
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Must suck to have lost that vote 5-4. what is bad is that there are four dishonest justices on the wrong side. Stevens' dissent was one of the most pathetic things I have ever read coming out of the USSC.
    Time will overturn it when the right wing ideologues finally leave the Court and sanity is returned to it.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #657
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,733

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    No - it is relevant because it proves you are incorrect in your partisan claims.
    what am I incorrect about

    that every federal gun control infringement was a Democrat Scheme?

    we get the fact that your posts want to pretend that gun rights being interfered with is some bipartisan scourge but that is wrong

    Your Democrat Party is responsible for EVERY federal gun control law that interferes with the rights of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms



  8. #658
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,733

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Time will overturn it when the right wing ideologues finally leave the Court and sanity is returned to it.
    So you think there is no individual right to KBA? Yet you claim you support what Heller did

    this appears to be more dishonest posting.

    God help the Democrats if they vote to "end" an individual right to keep and bear arms



  9. #659
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,733

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The silence from the defenders of Heller and Scalia in response to my post 609 where I quoted from Scalia and showed how he ignored his own evidence that he cited is deafening.






    the point is that Scalia was led by ideology and NOT by history or the Constitution or anything else. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller



    I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

    The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

    But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:





    So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?
    so the founders wanted to recognize a pre-existing "right" to serve in the military

    LOL



  10. #660
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    what am I incorrect about
    for starters, blaming Democrats and ignoring the support of Republicans including Ronald Reagan the conservative icon.

    for a follow up - this

    Your Democrat Party is responsible for EVERY federal gun control law that interferes with the rights of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms
    Nobodys right to keep and bear arms is being interfered with.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •