disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Funny.....
Psst... your ignorace is showing.
The definition of "arms" ans used in the 2nd has been addressed in 2 SCotUS rulings.
My position is that any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment bay be banned without violating the Constitution; by extentsion, any weapon that DOES fall under that definition cannot.
If you don't understand that position, figure it out.
If you disagree with that position, explain why.
Funny.....
I suggest you come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about.The Supreme Court has not defined the extent to which the second amendment extends "arms".
Needed to lighten the seriousness in here.
Needed to lighten the seriousness in here.
I suggest you come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about.
Sorry, but I take my gun-rights very seriously
LII: ConstitutionThe Constitution is not black/white nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Seems like pretty plain english to me, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED pretty much eliminates any "grey area" BTW, the Bill of Rights is not subject to interpretation, nor was it ever, only amendment 11 and up are subject, that is in the pre-amble, the founders writings, and the 10th.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Firearms control is specifically restricted from the federal government by the second amendment, it is also supposed to be restricted from the states, but that is another battle.
None of this is in a foreign language, and as you can see, there is no room for interpretation, I bolded the commas because they denote continuance of thought grammatically.
Rights are absolute, the exercise therein are not, I have a right to own firearms of my choosing, I do not have a right to murder someone with the owned firearm, or endanger my neighbor by shooting it too close to their house, all of the amendments are in check the same way.Just as in other rights defined in the bill of rights and elsewhere in the Constitution....they are not absolute.
Ah yes... back to the 'you're too stupid' argument you use when you know you cannot effectively discuss something. Your concession of the point is noted.and I suggest that you come back when you are capable of understanding a Supreme Court opinion.
LII: Constitution
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Seems like pretty plain english to me, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED pretty much eliminates any "grey area" BTW, the Bill of Rights is not subject to interpretation, nor was it ever, only amendment 11 and up are subject, that is in the pre-amble, the founders writings, and the 10th.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Firearms control is specifically restricted from the federal government by the second amendment, it is also supposed to be restricted from the states, but that is another battle.
None of this is in a foreign language, and as you can see, there is no room for interpretation, I bolded the commas because they denote continuance of thought grammatically.
Rights are absolute, the exercise therein are not, I have a right to own firearms of my choosing, I do not have a right to murder someone with the owned firearm, or endanger my neighbor by shooting it too close to their house, all of the amendments are in check the same way.
Again...that is a very simplistic interpretation of the Constitution. One which has never been true in actuality. If in fact that Constitution were black/white as you want to believe, again...there would be no need for the Supreme Court because there would be no analysis for which the court to engage in. The fact that there is a Supreme Court flys in the face of the black/white interpretation you want there to be.
Ah yes... back to the 'you're too stupid' argument you use when you know you cannot effectively discuss something. Your concession of the point is noted.
You have my position.
You refuse to learn what you need to know in order to have an intelligent discussion regarding same.
Given that, there's no way you can legitimately criticize my positon, and so, it stands.
Next?
Again...that is a very simplistic interpretation of the Constitution. One which has never been true in actuality. If in fact that Constitution were black/white as you want to believe, again...there would be no need for the Supreme Court because there would be no analysis for which the court to engage in. The fact that there is a Supreme Court flys in the face of the black/white interpretation you want there to be.
It was always my interpretation that the courts where to judge if laws where legit in reference to the Constitution. IMO the Constitution is pretty clear.
That is a complete load of horse ****, the constitution is written in plain english, that you defer to the court is irrelevant. The court hears cases in which laws are suspect, many of these laws arise from municipalities, states, counties, individuals, and even our own federal government overstepping their powers, and the only "grey area" comes from willful, semantic mis-interpretation of the plain english contained therein.Again...that is a very simplistic interpretation of the Constitution. One which has never been true in actuality. If in fact that Constitution were black/white as you want to believe, again...there would be no need for the Supreme Court because there would be no analysis for which the court to engage in.Again, appeal to the court. The court has many decisions that have been reversed by later courts, the court contains nine human beings appointed by one and voted on by a fraction of the population, if a majority on the court has an agenda, which some have, then laws will be interpreted in the manor of said agenda, even though the rare justice with integrity can be found. The fact is that the BOR as written is not subject to interpretation, the laws and behaviors in the secondary are.The fact that there is a Supreme Court flys in the face of the black/white interpretation you want there to be.
That is a complete load of horse ****, the constitution is written in plain english, that you defer to the court is irrelevant. The court hears cases in which laws are suspect, many of these laws arise from municipalities, states, counties, individuals, and even our own federal government overstepping their powers, and the only "grey area" comes from willful, semantic mis-interpretation of the plain english contained therein. Again, appeal to the court. The court has many decisions that have been reversed by later courts, the court contains nine human beings appointed by one and voted on by a fraction of the population, if a majority on the court has an agenda, which some have, then laws will be interpreted in the manor of said agenda, even though the rare justice with integrity can be found. The fact is that the BOR as written is not subject to interpretation, the laws and behaviors in the secondary are.
The fact that very VERY few Supreme Court decisions are unanimous should be an indication that the Constitution is not as black/white as you want to believe that it is.
If the Constitution is as b/w as you say it is....for what possible purpose was the Supreme Court set up? We could simply have one person read the Constitution and make a ruling.
The fact that very VERY few Supreme Court decisions are unanimous should be an indication that the Constitution is not as black/white as you want to believe that it is.
Or that people tend to invent new ways to twist statements.
the only "grey area" comes from willful, semantic mis-interpretation of the plain english contained therein.
Or it can be proof that there is a variance of agenda, it could be either, but it doesn't exclude the semantics of gun control.The fact that very VERY few Supreme Court decisions are unanimous should be an indication that the Constitution is not as black/white as you want to believe that it is.
And you accuse others of not understanding the court? The court was established to ensure that the laws contained within the constitution are not violated by other branches of government, also that laws passed measure up to the constitution, that interpretation of constitutional protections occur is a secondary result, and it's consequences are real.If the Constitution is as b/w as you say it is....for what possible purpose was the Supreme Court set up? We could simply have one person read the Constitution and make a ruling.
Or it can be proof that there is a variance of agenda, it could be either, but it doesn't exclude the semantics of gun control.
And you accuse others of not understanding the court? The court was established to ensure that the laws contained within the constitution are not violated by other branches of government, also that laws passed measure up to the constitution, that interpretation of constitutional protections occur is a secondary result, and it's consequences are real.
Exactly...and if the laws were as black/white as you argue they are...there would never be an issue.
Exactly...and if the laws were as black/white as you argue they are...there would never be an issue.
People can twist an individual word that has a clearly defined meaning into something it is not and never was intended to be used for.
Word... for an individual.
What's up... for a phrase.
Or, how about this one.
Gay.
If a society can transform individual words and phrases into something more to their liking (or not) what makes you think that we are not capable of transforming a paragraph into what we WANT?
As was said before...
the only "grey area" comes from willful, semantic mis-interpretation of the plain english contained therein.
Are you paying attention? I said agenda's change the situation, that is not to be interpreted as an indication that "grey area" exists in the rights contained within the BOR, that is the flawed human condition that arises from a lack of judicial and constitutional integrity. The rights are in fact absolute, the consequences of abusing them are not. We have a right to own any firearms we choose, we do NOT have a right to use them to commit murder, or open fire anywhere we choose, the difference is the danger that exists from using the firearm incorrectly v. owning the firearmExactly...and if the laws were as black/white as you argue they are...there would never be an issue.
Has it been an issue since the conventions, or just recently?
Ah, the lengths you will go to avoid having to admit that you do not know enough about a topic to discuss it and that you dont have the desire to rid yourself of your ignorance.BTW....we don't have your "position"...