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 89 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3979878889909199 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #881
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,689

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    More evidence of your proclivity for citing "experts" which agree with your position, while dismissing those who don't. You didn't even attempt to refute the expert opinion I posted the other day. Very telling indeed.
    Actually I previously cited linguistic experts used by Scalia in his Heller opinion.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #882
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Someone may already have quoted this passage from Heller, but I'll quote it again anyway. It proves that the claim that government granted the right to keep and bear arms is false.


    "[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” (italics in original)

  3. #883
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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
    Actually I previously cited linguistic experts used by Scalia in his Heller opinion.
    Do you agree with these so-called "linguistic experts"?

  4. #884
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Here is another quote from Heller:


    Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874). “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). (emphasis added)


    Notice that at least as long ago as 1802, British courts recognized that the enacting part of a law often reached beyond its preamble.

    Notice also that what Chief Justice Jay was quoted as saying about the use of preambles to laws to resolve ambiguities in them is very much like what the first part of the passage above says about how a prefatory clause may sometimes have a "clarifying function." There's nothing remarkable about either statement--and neither is the least inconsistent with the second part of the passage above.

  5. #885
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So where do we find those pre-existing rights outside of somebody's belief system? Do you have more quotes from the Court identifying just where those pre-existingrights actually could be found?

    Rights are very simple to understand. People demand that they want a certain behavior protected by the government so they exert enough power or influence to get government to protect that behavior as a right. There is nothing complicated or mystical about that. Rights do not come from gods or giant beings floating in space dispensing them like Halloween candy to costumed trick or treaters in late October.

    So there are people who believe in things because they want to believe in them. And Courts have even quoted them and invented statements of belief on their own to boot. So what? that does not prove the existence of these rights outside of a belief system held by fellow believers because they have made a choice to believe.

    Religion exists on such a self imposed belief system. People believe in the idea of natural rights the same way - they take it on faith and believe in it because they want to believe it. And for you to provide those statements of belief about where some people willfully want to believe rights come from does not make that fact nor reality that there are natural rights. It simply says that some people believe that.

    And 500 more quotes from believers in natural rights does not prove their existence any more than the statements from ten million people prove the existence of God or gods or any other supernatural entity that cannot be proven to exist.
    Your argument is really not with Justice Scalia or the majority in Heller, but with black-letter principles of constitutional law. You live under a Constitution that limits the power of government over individuals, but you would rather it gave government power to limit the rights of those individuals. You resent the fact the Constitution designs the very opposite of the kind of centralized, collectivist government you seem to long for, so you just ignore the Constitution. You want to deny that's what you are doing, so you protest that you are not an enemy of the Constitution. Well, you sure could have fooled me.

    You have quotes right here from Supreme Court decisions going back many years. I'm sure a lot more just like them could be found. They establish, beyond any question, that certain rights--particularly the ones guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments--were well recognized in law long before they were codified in the Bill of Rights. Even the way they are phrased in the Constitution bears this out. As the majority noted in Heller, "the very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'”

    The same is true of at least one other right protected by the unamended Constitution, the right to habeas. In one of the Guantanamo decisions--Boumediene v. Bush, I think--the Court discusses how that right predates the Constitution. Again, the phrasing in the Constitution bears that out. The Suspension Clause says that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended . . . " Why? Because habeas was already well-established as a fundamental right, here as in England, long before 1787.

  6. #886
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Please, are you suggesting no one knows more than you? That people don't study law and the Constitution? So, again, our systems calls on the courts to interpret and not novice lay people.
    you said expert.

    are these experts?

    man grew wheat to feed to his cattle...the court, interprets that to mean the government can regulate commence inside states?

    because wild birds fly between bodies of water in different states, this allows government to make environmental laws?


  7. #887
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution.
    so are you saying the preamble means nothing?

    that is not saying the clauses of the bill of rights are not declaratory and restrictive clauses.



    James Madison -"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.

    Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the press, than that it declared the press to be wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend the ground of public confidence in the Government. Nay, more; the construction employed to justify the Sedition Act would exhibit a phenomenon without a parallel in the political world. It would exhibit a number of respectable States, as denying, first, that any power over the press was delegated by the Constitution; as proposing, next, that an amendment to it should explicitly declare that no such power was delegated; and, finally, as concurring in an amendment actually recognising or delegating such a power.

    Is, then, the Federal Government, it will be asked, destitute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous attacks which may be made on those who administer it?The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.




    We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

    Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

  8. #888
    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 ernst barkmann View Post
    you said expert.

    are these experts?

    man grew wheat to feed to his cattle...the court, interprets that to mean the government can regulate commence inside states?

    because wild birds fly between bodies of water in different states, this allows government to make environmental laws?

    I'm sorry, I thought the context was clear. Now, try addressing the context I set up in my response.

    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. #889
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,689

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Do you agree with these so-called "linguistic experts"?
    To be brutally honest - I do not know enough about the subject of linguistics to offer a constructive and educated opinion that could effectively counter any of theirs.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #890
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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
    To be brutally honest - I do not know enough about the subject of linguistics to offer a constructive and educated opinion that could effectively counter any of theirs.
    OMG. Dude, please stop. Do you expect to have an ounce of credibility, or do you just accept that you don't?

Page 89 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3979878889909199 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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