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 67 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977117 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #661
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so the founders wanted to recognize a pre-existing "right" to serve in the military

    LOL
    Where are you getting such a statement from?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #662
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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
    I told you before - I support that Heller gave the win to the right party but felt Scalia went way to far in his ideological decision which has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution - only achieving a right wing wet dream that took 25 years to achieve fruition. He could have simply ruled the law went to far, overturned it and that would have been the end of it.

    And I have explained this to you before.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #663
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,690

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Where are you getting such a statement from?
    well why don't you tell us what right was recognized in the 2A.

    you claim Heller was wrong and should be overturned so you oppose the individual right even though you claim DC violated that right

    so what pre-existing right was recognized by the 2A and noted in Cruikshank



  4. #664
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,690

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I told you before - I support that Heller gave the win to the right party but felt Scalia went way to far in his ideological decision which has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution - only achieving a right wing wet dream that took 25 years to achieve fruition. He could have simply ruled the law went to far, overturned it and that would have been the end of it.

    And I have explained this to you before.
    that makes no sense

    you are complaining about an individual right

    none of the plaintiffs in Heller were members of a militia so consequently the only way for them to prevail was for an individual right to be recognized. If not, their case would have been dismissed due to standing

    what is the RW wet dream

    your posts really demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the entire legal issue in Heller.

    there was no way to strike down the DC law and NOT ALSO find that the 2A recognizes an individual right not connected to militia service



  5. #665
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Porchev View Post
    Yes it should be changed to this, so we can stop debating it endlessly:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    What the statement really is saying is "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."

    No need to change it, people just need to learn how to read proper English. The latter half is the half that matters. That is the right being defined. The former half is just explanatory, and in no way limits the latter.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  6. #666
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that makes no sense

    you are complaining about an individual right

    none of the plaintiffs in Heller were members of a militia so consequently the only way for them to prevail was for an individual right to be recognized. If not, their case would have been dismissed due to standing

    what is the RW wet dream

    your posts really demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the entire legal issue in Heller.

    there was no way to strike down the DC law and NOT ALSO find that the 2A recognizes an individual right not connected to militia service
    So you claim. But you provide no verifiable evidence of your claim.



    So why then are you powerless to answer my questions about Heller and Scalia and refute the glaring contradiction in his own opinion?

    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?

    and since you asked - the right wing wet dream is more and more and more guns in our nation.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-12-14 at 12:37 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #667
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,690

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Since we do NOT have a militia any longer and have not had one for a very long time now and it has been replaced by professional standing armies - your concerns are irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Like I said - you want to argue with Reagan - go for it.

    The Second Amendment says nothing about government tyranny. It does say a whole lot about militia service. And that is the purpose of it.

    Now taking these two statements together it appears you say that the 2A has no value anymore because

    1) it was about militia service, but the militia no longer exists (again your assumption that the founders believed that the only pre-existing right to be recognized was the laughable "right to serve in the federal militia") and that "right" can no longer be exercised.

    Of course that makes no sense since serving in a federal militia is not a pre-existing right but is a "right" that could only occur after the federal government was created. Thus, an impossibility under CRUIKSHANK

    then you claim that Heller's result was correct because the DC law prevented people (who were not in the militia and according to you cannot be since it no longer exists) from "exercising their rights" since they couldn't own handguns

    Do you understand that these three different positions are mutually contradictory?



  8. #668
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Now taking these two statements together it appears you say that the 2A has no value anymore because

    1) it was about militia service, but the militia no longer exists (again your assumption that the founders believed that the only pre-existing right to be recognized was the laughable "right to serve in the federal militia")

    then you claim that Heller's result was correct because the DC law prevented people (who were not in the militia and according to you cannot be since it no longer exists) from "exercising their rights" since they couldn't own handguns

    Do you understand that these three different positions are mutually contradictory?
    I do not know where you are getting this claim about a pre-existing right and the Founders but it is NOT from the Second Amendment. And that makes it irrelevant at best and a total absurdity at worst.

    My position is not contradictory. The Court could have simply ruled that the DC law created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms without every approaching the militia issue.

    You went to law school. I did not. I was always educated that a conservative approach to the law dictates that a judge always make the narrowest possible ruling without going further than necessary. That is exactly what Scalia betrayed in his ideological ruling. What happened to that tried and true time honored conservative approach?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  9. #669
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,690

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I do not know where you are getting this claim about a pre-existing right and the Founders but it is NOT from the Second Amendment. And that makes it irrelevant at best and a total absurdity at worst.

    My position is not contradictory. The Court could have simply ruled that the DC law created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms without every approaching the militia issue.

    You went to law school. I did not. I was always educated that a conservative approach to the law dictates that a judge always make the narrowest possible ruling without going further than necessary. That is exactly what Scalia betrayed in his ideological ruling. What happened to that tried and true time honored conservative approach?
    YOU CANNOT claim that the DC law interfered with a right of citizens to keep and bear arms without admitting an individual right

    you see, to do so would ignore the concept of standing

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Yes, I am 100% serious. I am asking for specifics.

    Again, are you able to cite examples where the government created an environment where the people were not able to keep and bear arms.

    I stated that the DC handgun law was such an example but one could easily argue that I am wrong since it still allowed for long guns to fulfill that right. So what are your other examples from reality here in the USA?
    your argument here contradicts your claim the the right recognized in the 2A is to be exercised only when in the militia



  10. #670
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    YOU CANNOT claim that the DC law interfered with a right of citizens to keep and bear arms without admitting an individual right

    you see, to do so would ignore the concept of standing



    your argument here contradicts your claim the the right recognized in the 2A is to be exercised only when in the militia
    If there was no individual right declared before Heller, how then did people keep and bear arms for 200 years?

    Is there any reason why the Court could not have declared that the people have a right to keep and bear arms within the context of providing for the militia thereby allowing the various clauses of Article I Section 8 on the militia to clearly and unmistakably come into play regarding laws controlling guns in the hands of the people? I suspect there was no reason why this approach could not be taken which would have established the right but also the ability of Congress to regulate it.

    But then the right wing cause celebre would not have been achieved then would it? That is a rhetorical question.

    And again, all you give me is your opinion and no evidence to support it. If your opinion on standing is so correct and matter of fact, why then did four other Supreme Court justices not see it your way? the fact that they did not see it your way plus the fact that you provide no evidence for your claim tells me it is simply your opinion based only on your political beliefs.

    I am retiring for the night and will look for your answer in the morning.

    I would appreciate it if you would speak to my post #666 giving the evidence from the Scalia opinion and the contradictions in his opinion which are the opposite of the Amicus Brief from the linguistic experts he cited as helping him with the meaning of the Amendment.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-12-14 at 12:55 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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
  •