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 68 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1858666768697078118 ... LastLast
Results 671 to 680 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #671
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    If there was no individual right declared before Heller, how then did people keep and bear arms for 200 years?

    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.
    there was no right to sodomy either and people were being buggered for years.

    Four justices are statists who don't like people owning guns. Stevens' pathetic dissent basically comes down to the USSC should follow corrupt court of appeals decisions that were based on the fraudulent belief that since CRUIKSHANK says the Bill of rights DID NOT CREATE (duh, it merely recognized it) a RKBA, none existed. that is the logic some appellate courts used to uphold laws that targeted freed blacks and "Papist immigrants"

    but lets get back to all the contradictions in your own statements

    How could have Heller struck down laws that infringed on the rights of NON-miliita members without the decision recognizing an individual right

    and since you said the militia no longer exists you are really in a bad position



  2. #672
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    there was no right to sodomy either and people were being buggered for years.
    I do not know what that interesting tidbit has to do with the topic but are you now going to assert an individuals right to that practice as you have with guns? It looks like my comparisons to NAMBLA have been correct. Either that or you just introduced something which has no relevance here.

    So I ask you again....If there was no individual right declared before Heller, how then did people keep and bear arms for 200 years when they were NOT in the militia?



    Four justices are statists who don't like people owning guns
    .

    You miss the point. Lets try and get back to it. You stated that because of STANDING Scalia had to approach his decision the way he did inventing this concept of the individual right divorced from any militia language. You have offered no proof supporting this claim but lets go with it for a second. Are we actually to believe for a moment that four other justices who have many collective years on the court do not understand the basic idea of legal standing? Is that really your position because it seems absurd in the extreme. And there is nothing in Heller which states what you claim on this entire STANDING issue.

    How could have Heller struck down laws that infringed on the rights of NON-miliita members without the decision recognizing an individual right
    They simply could have declared that the right to keep and bear arms was negated by the DC law on handguns while affirming that the Congress was given powers to regulate guns from Article I Section 8 via the several militia clauses as well as other clauses even though the militia has been effectively transformed and changed into a standing army, the national guard and professional police forces.

    I stated that earlier.

    And you are ignoring my post 666 which you seem powerless to refute. Please speak to it.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-12-14 at 08:45 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

  3. #673
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I do not know what that interesting tidbit has to do with the topic but are you now going to assert an individuals right to that practice as you have with guns? It looks like my comparisons to NAMBLA have been correct. Either that or you just introduced something which has no relevance here.

    So I ask you again....If there was no individual right declared before Heller, how then did people keep and bear arms for 200 years when they were NOT in the militia?



    .

    You miss the point. Lets try and get back to it. You stated that because of STANDING Scalia had to approach his decision the way he did inventing this concept of the individual right divorced from any militia language. You have offered no proof supporting this claim but lets go with it for a second. Are we actually to believe for a moment that four other justices who have many collective years on the court do not understand the basic idea of legal standing? Is that really your position because it seems absurd in the extreme. And there is nothing in Heller which states what you claim on this entire STANDING issue.



    They simply could have declared that the right to keep and bear arms was negated by the DC law on handguns while affirming that the Congress was given powers to regulate guns from Article I Section 8 via the several militia clauses as well as other clauses even though the militia has been effectively transformed and changed into a standing army, the national guard and professional police forces.

    I stated that earlier.

    And you are ignoring my post 666 which you seem powerless to refute. Please speak to it.
    wrong-again you have posted internally contradictory arguments.

    you cannot claim Heller did the right thing while claiming that the second amendment-unlike other parts of the bill of rights-was only a collective right

    the four other justices' dissents are a nadir in Constitutional scholarship



  4. #674
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    wrong-again you have posted internally contradictory arguments.

    you cannot claim Heller did the right thing while claiming that the second amendment-unlike other parts of the bill of rights-was only a collective right

    the four other justices' dissents are a nadir in Constitutional scholarship
    My claim about the right decision in Heller is that the Court decided for the correct side as the law went too far. And I just explained to you how they could have decided the case with the party winning. There is no contradiction. If the Court wanted to declare an individual right they simply could have declared that the right to keep and bear arms was negated by the DC law on handguns while affirming that the Congress was given powers to regulate guns from Article I Section 8 via the several militia clauses as well as other clauses even though the militia has been effectively transformed and changed into a standing army, the national guard and professional police forces.

    the four other justices' dissents are a nadir in Constitutional scholarship
    Right case - wrong opinion. The majority opinion from Scalia qualifies however. 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

  5. #675
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,605

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    My claim about the right decision in Heller is that the Court decided for the correct side as the law went too far. And I just explained to you how they could have decided the case with the party winning. There is no contradiction. If the Court wanted to declare an individual right they simply could have declared that the right to keep and bear arms was negated by the DC law on handguns while affirming that the Congress was given powers to regulate guns from Article I Section 8 via the several militia clauses as well as other clauses even though the militia has been effectively transformed and changed into a standing army, the national guard and professional police forces.
    claiming that this only part of the bill of rights failed to acknowledge an individual right is just silly.

    what prior natural right do you claim the founders wanted to recognize

    give it up Haymarket, you have twisted your arguments into a pretzel and they are contradicting each other



  6. #676
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    claiming that this only part of the bill of rights failed to acknowledge an individual right is just silly.

    what prior natural right do you claim the founders wanted to recognize

    give it up Haymarket, you have twisted your arguments into a pretzel and they are contradicting each other
    Not at all is it silly. I have shown you how the decision could have been written. You do not like that. Fine. But I have shown it just the same.

    You are merely against it because my approach would have reaffirmed the right of Congress to pass regulations in this area and are against that as part of your own political belief system. You being against the approach does NOT make it contradictory nor silly. It simply makes you against it because of your own beliefs and political agenda.

    As to a prior natural right - there is no such thing and you have never been able to prove any such thing exists outside of a willful belief which exists only in the mind of the believer.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-12-14 at 09:10 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. #677
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    IMO anyone who won't read Heller, shouldn't comment on the topic.

    ...or vote.
    Bull****. I don't need Heller to understand the Second Amendment.

    Or vote? That's just asinine.

  8. #678
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Bull****. I don't need Heller to understand the Second Amendment.

    Or vote? That's just asinine.
    You should hope and pray that people opposed to the gun lobby DO NOT read Heller since Scalia contradicts himself with his cited sources on the meaning of the terms in it.

    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

  9. #679
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You should hope and pray that people opposed to the gun lobby DO NOT read Heller since Scalia contradicts himself with his cited sources on the meaning of the terms in it.

    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?
    I don't really give a ****. The Second Amendment is clear, without referencing any outside sources, and strictly from a language perspective. Which really shouldn't even be needed. The meaning is clear. It is only because of gun hating liberals, that this argument even needs to take place.

    Riddle me this Batman, why does the 2A use the term "the people"?

  10. #680
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    I don't really give a ****.
    Of course you don't. Why confuse you with facts and reality when you seem so comfy and secure in your own belief system?

    why does the 2A use the term "the people"?
    the first half of the same sentence in the same Amendment in the same Constitution tells you who the people they are referring to are. Or lets look at the answer as given by the previously experts Scalia claimed he was guided by in his majority opinion:

    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.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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
  •