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 78 of 136 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088128 ... LastLast
Results 771 to 780 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #771
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    By your standard the majority opinion in HELLER written by Scalia is IGNORANT and STUPID and DISHONEST and is thus INVALID. That is by your own standards Turtle.
    Opinion noted-and denied as being invalid



  2. #772
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Opinion noted-and denied as being invalid
    Your non responsive response continues to run and hide and dodge the issue? Why can't you deal with a very specific charge which demonstrates a serious contradiction in the Scalia opinion?


    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 why does that not make the Scalia HELLER opinion STUPID or IGNORANT or DISHONEST or even INVALID according to your standard?
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-13-14 at 12:33 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. #773
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Your non responsive response continues to run and hide and dodge the issue? Why can't you deal with a very specific charge which demonstrates a serious contradiction in the Scalia opinion?
    as opposed to you refusing to concede obvious facts

    1) that civilian cops are civilians

    2) that the democrat party is the party that pushes gun control

    3) that the founders intended the bill of rights to guarantee natural rights

    4) that "shall not be infringed" prevents "infringements"


    I have no duty to answer your questions when you have failed to actually respond to undisputed facts



  4. #774
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    as opposed to you refusing to concede obvious facts

    1) that civilian cops are civilians

    2) that the democrat party is the party that pushes gun control

    3) that the founders intended the bill of rights to guarantee natural rights

    4) that "shall not be infringed" prevents "infringements"


    I have no duty to answer your questions when you have failed to actually respond to undisputed facts
    I have answered all those points - many many many many times.

    You are dodging the question and have been all day long. Why?

    Of course you have no duty. I am happy to have you continue to refuse to speak to the issue as it shows conclusively that your claim of never being wrong on gun issues is false on its face since you defend Scalia and Heller but are powerless to speak to its obvious contradictions.

    Why don't you take eight or so hours and try to come up with something here and get back with me in the morning?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #775
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I have answered all those points - many many many many times.

    You are dodging the question and have been all day long. Why?

    Of course you have no duty. I am happy to have you continue to refuse to speak to the issue as it shows conclusively that your claim of never being wrong on gun issues is false on its face since you defend Scalia and Heller but are powerless to speak to its obvious contradictions.

    Why don't you take eight or so hours and try to come up with something here and get back with me in the morning?

    I don't need to defend Scalia since I have problems with him not throwing out all federal gun control as violating the 10th

    you need to tell us how you can claim that people not in the militia had their 2A rights violated when you also claim that there is no individual right

    my positions on gun control are not internally contradictory

    yours are



  6. #776
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I don't need to defend Scalia since I have problems with him not throwing out all federal gun control as violating the 10th
    Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that Scalia cites the amicus brief as important to him but then comes to the opposite decision. By your standards that you have discussed on opinions, it is IGNORANT and STUPID and DISHONEST all rendering it as INVALID.

    you need to tell us how you can claim that people not in the militia had their 2A rights violated when you also claim that there is no individual right
    Did you miss my previous post in which I explained how the COurt should have handled this question? I answered that for you yesterday when you first brought it up.

    Scalia could have written an opinion which said nothing about some arbitrary distinction between his silly PREFATORY clause and the OPERANT clause which elevated the second half at the expense of diminishing the first half. That was completely and totally unnecessary. He could have admitted the importance of the militia language and stated clearly that was the purpose of the Amendment in the first place - to have something other than a standing army. He could have then discussed the history of the militia, who was in it and the importance of having a gun in that sort of system. He could have then discussed how both the militia system and the view of guns has changed over the last two centuries and the right evolved with it. And as the right evolved, so did guns evolve. And as both of those evolved, so did the role of government in the nation.

    he could have concluded by putting all that together to state that - like it or not... intended or not .... gun ownership has evolved to be considered as an individual right. But as that has evolved so has the other components and they must be considered right along with it. As the original Constitution gives power over the militia, it is obvious that the Founders intended the weapons of the militia to be subject to regulation and control. And while we no longer have the militia because the right has evolved, we must also consider that intent applied to the right today and Congress can pass reasonable regulations over firearms providing the right can be exercised and Congress cannot create an environment where the right cannot be exercised.

    The DC law creates an environment where the right to keep and bear arms cannot be exercised and is thus unconstitutional because it focuses on the most popular and widely used gun for home protection - the handgun.

    And there you have it. The same party would have won the case. The same law would have been thrown out. And the power of Congress to regulate firearms would have been clearly upheld and clarified.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-13-14 at 07:27 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. #777
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Right wing 2A folks have their beliefs--
    Left wing 2A folks have their beliefs--
    Then there's moderate 2A folks like me who just shake their head--
    Let me know whenm you two sets of folks are ready to meet at the 50-yard line and shake hands .
    Please read my post 776. I believe that is a middle ground.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  8. #778
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Oh please, when you guys talk compromise with the conservatives, it just means them giving in.
    Many argue the reverse is more true. But that type of dodge is beside the point. Your exaggeration is still an exaggeration.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #779
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Many argue the reverse is more true. But that type of dodge is beside the point. Your exaggeration is still an exaggeration.
    when it comes to guns, American is 100% correct

    what have the anti gun scum in office ever promised in return for more resrictions

    what those assholes say is -we will let you keep some guns in return for banning others

    as I noted

    here is the proper compromise

    Don't take honest peoples' guns and they won't' shoot you or repeal your stupid gun laws and you won't be tried for treason

    under the 2A there is no proper reason for honest people to compromise with the control freaks



  10. #780
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    as I noted

    here is the proper compromise

    Don't take honest peoples' guns and they won't' shoot you or repeal your stupid gun laws and you won't be tried for treason
    Got it. Do it our way or we will murder you or imprison you. Great!
    __________________________________________________ _
    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
  •