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 73 of 136 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583123 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #721
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,729

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    In other words, you refuse to answer it because it damages your case. I don't blame you. Goodnight.
    I refuse to answer what exactly?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #722
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,729

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    YOur posts are akin to squid ink on this board-
    I think this one has merit: read it and weigh in

    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).
    You see Turtle, not only have I read Heller, but I went the extra step and looked up the citations Scalia uses to explain his thinking. 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. #723
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Being destroyed?!?!?!?!? What ever do you mean?



    You cannot recognize something which does not exist in reality.



    Simple REALITY refutes you Turtle... simple everyday reality proves you are wrong.
    more silliness

    lets suppose the College of Cardinals are tasked with writing a new constitution for the Vatican and they say in that constitution that the papal state recognizes God's law. and 200 years later, some marxists claim that since God does not exist, the cardinals' law make no sense. Same thing.

    Our founders believed in natural law. Men who believed in natural law would not do certain things and they would do other things

    which apparently is why so much diversion is spent claiming natural rights do not exist

    that has no relevance

    what is relevant is that men who believed in NATURAL RIGHTS would issue amendments designed to recognize those rights

    and that explains why so much time is spent trying to divert from that fact



  4. #724
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,729

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    more silliness

    lets suppose the College of Cardinals are tasked with writing a new constitution for the Vatican and they say in that constitution that the papal state recognizes God's law. and 200 years later, some marxists claim that since God does not exist, the cardinals' law make no sense. Same thing.

    Our founders believed in natural law. Men who believed in natural law would not do certain things and they would do other things

    which apparently is why so much diversion is spent claiming natural rights do not exist

    that has no relevance

    what is relevant is that men who believed in NATURAL RIGHTS would issue amendments designed to recognize those rights

    and that explains why so much time is spent trying to divert from that fact
    No self adopted belief because you want to believe it can make something that does not exist suddenly exist in reality. That is a fact.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #725
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    No self adopted belief because you want to believe it can make something that does not exist suddenly exist in reality. That is a fact.
    what is a fact is that you continually and deliberately miss the point because you don't like what that point is. whether natural rights exist or not is irrelevant and you KNOW that. people who believe in natural rights would not craft a document recognizing them that would allow all the intrusions you claim they intended

    again (for the people who are reading this)

    A catholic manuscript refers to "the savior".

    I claim that means Jesus because Catholics believed that Jesus was the savior

    you argue that there is no God

    irrelevant



  6. #726
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,729

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    what is a fact is that you continually and deliberately miss the point because you don't like what that point is. whether natural rights exist or not is irrelevant and you KNOW that. people who believe in natural rights would not craft a document recognizing them that would allow all the intrusions you claim they intended
    Sadly for your argumentTurtle - the reality that proves you wrong is that they simply did just what you want to pretend that they did not do. I guess the responsibility of actually governing imbues one with a sense of responsibility with ones actions that the musings of a dilettante does not carry.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #727
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Sadly for your argumentTurtle - the reality that proves you wrong is that they simply did just what you want to pretend that they did not do. I guess the responsibility of actually governing imbues one with a sense of responsibility with ones actions that the musings of a dilettante does not carry.
    now you are rewriting history

    you speculate what the founders did because that is all you have. we have their speeches and their letters and not a single document supports the swill you spew. so you have to pretend that men who believed in natural rights would pen amendments that would not recognize such rights

    or that Shall not be infringed was INTENDED to allow infringements

    or that civilian cops are not civilians

    everything you post on this subject is orwellian and nonsensical



  8. #728
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,736

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Can I support what quote I posted? the Reagan quote? I think it perfectly summarizes the feelings of large numbers of Americans on firearms and that is why I presented it. I also like to use it to show just how far to the extreme right the gun lobby crowd has gotten since Reagan - the conservative icon and most conservative president since 1932.

    What else do you need to know that has not already been said?
    Why is does that quote demonstrate how 'far the extreme right the gun lobby crowd has gotten since Reagan"? In a country like America where persona liberty and free will are held paramount, people do not need to justify the property, pastimes, and experiences they desire. RR was wrong when he said that Americans dont need AKs for hunting (implied) or for self-defense...he explicitly said 'need.' The AK is very handy for home defense. WHo is RR or anyone else to tell a person what he or she needs to keep their home safe? And people do indeed hunt with them...it's a choice. Who is RR or anyone else to tell an American they cannot?

    And then all my examples backed that up. Do you need them reiterated?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #729
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,729

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    now you are rewriting history

    you speculate what the founders did because that is all you have.
    No speculation is involved.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  10. #730
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,729

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Why is does that quote demonstrate how 'far the extreme right the gun lobby crowd has gotten since Reagan"?
    Because RR was the most conservative US President in the last 80 years and he supported gun control and conservatives supported him. But since he left the right wing has taken over the NRA and the party has shifter to the far right on this issue.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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
  •