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 94 of 136 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #931
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,080

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    again fail, the amendments 1-10 were ratified and they are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government
    I see you cannot answer my questions posed to you in post 927 after I was good enough to answer your question. Typical.

    as a courtesy to you, here they are again

    Well everything that is a statement declares something if that is what you mean. And the federal government certainly has restrictions on it in many many many ways from many different parts of the Constitution.

    But if that is not good enough for you - and practical common sense answers rarely are - you will have to explain to me what you mean by those two terms and what your agenda is in using them. I went online and tried to research the terms as you use them and all I got was a small number of right libertarian sites. The terms seem to have the cache of sacred scripture to the far right but are virtually meaningless to anybody else not clued in to the cause celebre.

    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...ctive-clauses/

    http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti10.html

    Why is that? Who is the apostle of this new gospel and why are they preaching it and why are you a convert to it?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #932
    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
    i see you cannot answer my questions posed to you in post 927 after i was good enough to answer your question. Typical.

    As a courtesy to you, here they are again

    well everything that is a statement declares something if that is what you mean. And the federal government certainly has restrictions on it in many many many ways from many different parts of the constitution.

    But if that is not good enough for you - and practical common sense answers rarely are - you will have to explain to me what you mean by those two terms and what your agenda is in using them. I went online and tried to research the terms as you use them and all i got was a small number of right libertarian sites. The terms seem to have the cache of sacred scripture to the far right but are virtually meaningless to anybody else not clued in to the cause celebre.

    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...ctive-clauses/

    The Constitution For The United States, Its Sources and Its Applications- "Bill of Rights" Proposals

    why is that? Who is the apostle of this new gospel and why are they preaching it and why are you a convert to it?
    it was already answered before you even asked it. #887


    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post

    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."
    Amendment I (Speech and Press): James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
    Last edited by Master PO; 10-18-14 at 03:35 PM.

  3. #933
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,080

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    it was already answered before you even asked it. #887




    Amendment I (Speech and Press): James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
    I am not conversing with the ghost of Madison. I want your view on it.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  4. #934
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    My statement was that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the US Constitution. Nothing you said in your post contradicts that or shows it to be not true.
    Your problem is that your interpretation of the Constitution demands the Constitution violate the principles is is founded upon. You read the words of the Constitution in a philosophical vacuum or worse, through a 20th Century communitarian filter that is entirely incompatible with the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights. Your allegience to statist, communitarian values, which came into being in 1917, forces you to render yourself blind to the foundational principles of the Constitution and argue against their binding action under law. A sad denial of reality that you believe demonstrates intelligence, how funny is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Is this the part where I now get to make smartass comments about your reading comprehension or your intelligence?
    Go ahead, have at it, it will only make you appear more ridiculous than you already look.

    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?
    The origin of those concepts and the form of government deemed "legitimate" under the social contract theory is usually associated with John Locke, Algernon Sidney and Francis Hutchenson. The concepts set-out by those writers was embraced by the founders / framers and they rejected the statist, absolutist political models of Hobbes, Bodin and Filmer. Please note; the communitarian model of Marx is not among the theories available to the founders / framers.

    Their choice was either to accept that the King enjoyed a divine, unquestionable right to rule how he saw fit, OR that humans possess inherent rights, the most important being self-determination and the right to choose their government . . .

    They chose the latter and embraced the political model that went with it and ratified a Constitution based on the following:


    That the people possess certain rights that, because they are so intrinsic to being human, they can never be conferred to the care and control of another or government (un/inalienable rights) . . .

    That a government instituted on the principles of conferred powers can only exercise the specific, limited powers conferred to it by the people thus the people retained all powers that were not conferred to government (retained rights) . . .

    That the the people always retained the original right of self defense, that if the government ever violates the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to it, it is the duty of the people to declare the government illegitimate, to rescind their consent to be governed, to reclaim the powers lent to government and throw out the usurpers, with violence if that de-powering can not be done peacefully (see 2nd Amendment) . . .


    Those are the foundational principles that your allegiance to 20th Century statist / communitarian political theory demands you dismiss and ignore (which makes you sound so ridiculous when you try to discuss the Constitution).

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    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.
    Correct. And the Constitution is a contract that the poeple demanded that forces government to consider our rights to pre-exist the creation of government. You find it convenient to link the origin of rights to a deity (for ridicule value) but respecting the Constitution doesn't demand accepting a theological argument as the origin of rights. Just as long as you reject the thought that the government is the source of rights, you will be fine . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    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.
    That your personal value system is at odds with foundational constitutional principles is your problem and not one that resides in the citizens who respect and honor the Constitution and demand government be confined to the Constitution's limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    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.
    Again, your modern, enlightened personal value system demands you reject the foundational principles of the Constitution . . . That doesn't mean that government isn't contractually bound to act within those foundational principles and that SCOTUS enforce those principles on the operation of government. Sorry!

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    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.
    They certainly do exist as far as the legitimate operations of government under the Constitution are concerned.

    It's funny, your argument applies more to your personal opinion and position of purposeful denial of constitutional principles and their legal action than any argument in favor of natural rights theory and citing the evidence of their legal existence under Constitution. Just because you consider natural / inherent / pre-existing rights to be fiction (empirically) does not mean that they are legal fiction and it is quite ridiculous for you to argue against their existence in the face of unwavering legal decisions saying they do exist legally. LOL.
    Last edited by Willie Orwontee; 10-19-14 at 08:57 AM.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  5. #935
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    How does that change the fact that Scalia listed it as a source for himself in his opinion?
    You don't know how citations work?

    That Scalia cited and quoted a specific passage doesn't mean he is endorsing the entire body of the work. If one can find a staement that endorses your position in an argument that overall is opposed to you, so much the better . . .

    Only what's represented at the citation (page 3 of the brief and only what's quoted and section 585 on page 394 of Tiffany's work) can be said to be applicable to the singular, specific point of law then being made or addressed.

    Scalia cited the brief and Tiffany and quoted the brief's paraphrase of the 2nd Amendment to make his point that the declaratory / prefatory clause only declares a political reason why the pre-existing right was being secured from governmental injury, IOW, why the 2nd Amendment exists.

    Tiffany, Section 585, page 394 makes the same point:


    "The second amendment of the constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  6. #936
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    Please provide a full citation and a link to his opinion in Jones v. Walker, because you can not be trusted to provide an honest quotation or synopsis of any legal statement.
    sure thing Willie. Jones v. Walker, 13, F. Cas. 1059, 1065 (C.C.D. Va. n. d.) (no. 7507) , reprinted in Maeva Marcus, THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1789 - 1800. New York Columbia University Press, 2004. page 301.

    It is further cited with footnotes in THE SECOND AMENDMENT - A Biography by Michael Waldman - Simon & Schuster 2014. page 62.

    I asked for a link because the opinion is not found in any search. I want to read Jay's opinion and the context of his preamble statement (which you purport to be specifically about the 2nd Amendment). I don't believe you and don't trust you (and I really don't trust Waldman) and again I ask you to provide a link to the actual opinion.

    QFT:
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    My side? I gues that would include Chief Justice John Jay who discussed the Amendment in 1791 in an opinion in Jones v. Walker saying


    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Q. What Supreme Court decision or federal law used it before Scalia in Heller?
    A. None that I know of and none that you have cited.
    So, you are saying that SCOTUS can only quote previous statements by SCOTUS, that they can not elevate to the opinion of the Court a challenged lower court's opinion that they are affirming / sustaining?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Not exactly. I am the one who simply says that one cannot dismiss the first half of the Amendment as Scalia does and place the emphasis on the second half .
    Well, if you simply say that then you are the one in opposition to the longstanding unwavering opinion of SCOTUS which demands we accept that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is in no manner dependent of the words of the Constitution for its existence.

    Since that is certainly where you stand then you are the one admitting that your demonization of Scalia is simply politics and your politics is the reason why you ignore the SCOTUS precedent that demands Scalia dismiss the first half of the Amendment and reject any theory that the first half imparts conditions or qualifications or is in any way restrictive or constraining on the right to arms.

    Thanks for admitting that (as if it wasn't blindingly apparent).

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Isn't it interesting that there is only one single amendment in the bill of rights which gives us the reason for creating that right and it is the Second?
    And there is an affirmation of the fundamental flaw in your understanding of the Constitution and which directly leads to your profundly and irredeemably incorect positions on the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not create the right.

    The declaratory clause tells us a political reason why the original, fundamental, pre-existing, never surrendered/ fully retained, completely held out of any powers granted to government right is being forever protected from government injury . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    None of the others do that. But yet we are suppose to dismiss it as the NRA does with half of the Amendment on their lobby wall or as Scalia does. Sorry - I respect ALL of it.
    LOL, you respect none of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Because you believe that our rights were handed out by gods in the sky like Halloween candy at the end of October. So you find reality "hilarious"? Got it.
    Actually, I would argue that the founders / framers rejected with every cell of their body that "God" has any part in governance. They rejected the theory that God endowed a divine right to rule in the King and that it was sacrilege to question his absolute authority . . . The reference to "rights endowed by our Creator" was merely a rhetorical device that is more to the point that the government, when premised on the "self-evident truths" of the Lockean social compact, is not the source of rights.

    Feel free to continue with your misapplied hyperbolic accusations though, it's really working for you!

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Yes - statements of your fellow believers because they want to believe what they have chosen to believe because they believe it. So where did this pre-existingrights exist then? Where did they come from?
    Where did your communitarian values come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You cannot answer that and still cling to your beliefs as anything but beliefs.
    Except I can point to centuries of legal action and enforcement of those principles by those who are bound by contract to "believe" it. You have nothing but the useless attempt to argue that 20th century communiarian theory is applicable to the Constitution, which is why you are forced to lie about what the Constitution is and and what it does and demonize / demean / denigrate and ridicule those who respect the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Oh my!!!! An enemy of the Constitution no less!!!! I guess in your world this is not simply a honest disagreement over different interpretations?
    Yes an enemy, it is readily apparent. This isn't a disagreement on simple "interpretation" you seek to undermine the foundation for legitimate authority and erect illegitimate authority on its ruins and usurp power never envisioned to be the domain of government.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I must be a ENEMY OF THE CONSTITUTION because one justice made the difference in a 5 to 4 decision which turned upside down two centuries of precedent. Got it.
    No, you are an enemy because of what you did right there . . . Baldly lying about what SCOTUS has done to advance a political agenda . . .

    There is no defense, you can not lie about the Constitution and advocate things in opposition to the Constitution and argue for the ignoring of foundational principles of the Constitution and not be considered an enemy of the Constitution.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  7. #937
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,080

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    Your problem is that your interpretation of the Constitution demands the Constitution violate the principles is is founded upon.
    I accept the Constitution as it is written and DO NOT fill in the blanks with my own personal ideology.

    You read the words of the Constitution .....
    .......... as they were written - not as I want them to be or wish them to be or after filtering them through the writings of others.

    I asked you this question

    Originally Posted by haymarket
    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?
    and your 'answer'

    The origin of those concepts and the form of government deemed "legitimate" under the social contract theory is usually associated with John Locke, Algernon Sidney and Francis Hutchenson.
    I have read those authors and they simply presented their own beliefs which did not exist outside of their own belief system.

    And the Constitution is a contract that the poeple demanded that forces government to consider our rights to pre-exist the creation of government.
    So I ask again, where did these so called "pre-existing rights' actually exist outside of the self imposed belief system of believers?

    Their choice was either to accept that the King enjoyed a divine, unquestionable right to rule how he saw fit, OR that humans possess inherent rights, the most important being self-determination and the right to choose their government . . .
    Where do you get off saying there were only two choices and then define them for us? A belief in something does not make it real. Real life actions give us rights.

    That your personal value system is at odds with foundational constitutional principles is your problem and not one that resides in the citizens who respect and honor the Constitution and demand government be confined to the Constitution's limits.
    What personal value system is that? The only thing I believe in is reality.

    Just because you consider natural / inherent / pre-existing rights to be fiction (empirically) does not mean that they are legal fiction and it is quite ridiculous for you to argue against their existence in the face of unwavering legal decisions saying they do exist legally.
    No legal decision can make something which does not exist suddenly exist simply because of a belief. And until you can prove that these so called natural rights existed in something other than a belief system and indeed were pre-existing, all you have is your own rationalizations and that of fellow believers.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #938
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,080

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    You don't know how citations work?
    I know enough which is how to read English and the English that I read from the experts mentioned by Scalia say clearly that the right being discussed was connected to military service.



    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.
    All your verbage does not change that.


    I asked for a link because the opinion is not found in any search. I want to read Jay's opinion and the context of his preamble statement (which you purport to be specifically about the 2nd Amendment). I don't believe you and don't trust you (and I really don't trust Waldman) and again I ask you to provide a link to the actual opinion.
    Everything ever written has not yet been linked. I gave you where to find it and now you have it.

    You don't want to believe me? tough. It changes nothing that I provided you with the source of the statement from Jay.
    You Don't want to trust me? tough. It changes nothing that I provided you with the source of the statement from Jay.

    Well, if you simply say that then you are the one in opposition to the longstanding unwavering opinion of SCOTUS which demands we accept that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is in no manner dependent of the words of the Constitution for its existence.
    No opinion of any judge or court can make something only existing in a belief system suddenly real simply by repeating the belief in that belief.

    So where did this right to bear arms exist before written in our constitutions? Show me where it resided and where it pre-existed outside of somebodys belief.

    The reference to "rights endowed by our Creator" was merely a rhetorical device that is more to the point that the government, when premised on the "self-evident truths" of the Lockean social compact, is not the source of rights.
    Really? And your proof of this is what exactly? And who was this mysterious CREATOR is not a belief in God?

    Yes an enemy, it is readily apparent.
    Resorting to silly name calling is a really poor substitute for definitive answers to my questions that you are powerless to answer such as where these so called pre-existing rights were before our constitutions.

    But if being an ENEMY OF THE CONSTITUTION means I am on the other side of your interpretations - that is a badge of honor.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-19-14 at 11:22 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

  9. #939
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    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"?
    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.
    Well, Haymarket originally said that the linguistic experts brief, "contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years" so he obviously thought he possessed a functional knowledge of linguistics, at a minimum to allow him to identify "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing".

    Of course this was when he also believed that the linguistics experts brief was written to support Heller so he reflexively assumed that it was in opposition to his positions and it was perfectly safe to claim he read it and to say it contained "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing".

    Now that it has been pointed out that the brief was written to support DC and actually argues his theory of the 2nd Amendment, he suddenly possesses insufficient understanding of the English language to even say if he agrees with it.

    He is between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

    The sad place he finds himself in is a product of the anti-Constitution political agenda he advances because the nurturing and maintenance of that agenda demands one abandon all intellectual integrity when discussing the Constitution.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  10. #940
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,080

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    Well, Haymarket originally said that the linguistic experts brief, "contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years" so he obviously thought he possessed a functional knowledge of linguistics, at a minimum to allow him to identify "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing".
    Sadly, that seems to be one of the qualities of linguists.

    Of course this was when he also believed that the linguistics experts brief was written to support Heller so he reflexively assumed that it was in opposition to his positions and it was perfectly safe to claim he read it and to say it contained "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing".
    It matters not to me who they wrote in support of - only that they came to this conclusion

    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.


    He is between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
    As I did not write the Heller opinion I am in neither place. Although you could apply your quip to Justice Scalia since he went to the trouble of mentioning the opinion of the experts then for some reason came to the opposite conclusion.

    The sad place he finds himself in is a product of the anti-Constitution political agenda he advances because the nurturing and maintenance of that agenda demands one abandon all intellectual integrity when discussing the Constitution.
    I have no idea what that means and apparently neither do you. What agenda do I have? How is my "agenda" - assuming you can identify it - anti-Constitution?
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-19-14 at 11:28 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

Page 94 of 136 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... 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
  •