View Poll Results: See OP for 2-pat question

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • The court will hear the case (or one like it)

    11 50.00%
  • The court will NOT hear the case (or one like it)

    1 4.55%
  • The court will incorporate the 2nd against the states

    8 36.36%
  • The court will NOT incorporate the 2nd against the states

    4 18.18%
  • Other

    2 9.09%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 164

Thread: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

  1. #101
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,968

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    Now you are just putting words in my mouth.
    I was simply reading it based on your context. If that's not what you meant, then fine.


    Yes that is what it says. It does say that a weapon cannot be 18 inches or longer in length in order for it to constitute a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
    However, it also says:

    In other words, the Second Amendment must be viewed through the eyes of Article 1 Section 8, which only discusses the militia. It says that the Second Amendment was made with the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the militia.
    Yes, in terms of the weapon, not the person.


    And you’ve conveniently ignored the other cases that Stevens cited.
    The court in Stevens cited ONLY Miller, and offered no textual support FROM Miller for its assertion.

    Miller does not say what they claimed it does.


    “There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent,” Mrs. Ginsberg said. “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?”
    Mrs. Ginsberg argued the Supreme Court has lost standing in the international community by failing to integrate foreign decisions into its constitutional rulings. The court’s only female jurist noted the Canadian Supreme Court is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court” because “you will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
    “The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Mrs. Ginsberg said in a speech four years ago.

    It’s not theory. I’ve given you actual examples of how these restrictions are applied. So please show me how they are not practical and don’t work.
    Mrs. Ginsburg did a pretty good job of it herself, supra.


    Majorities? Dissents are dissents for a reason, because the dissenter doesn’t hold the majority opinion. Are you saying that because not all judges on a panel agree on a decision, that they must be making stuff up?
    No. But what I said should be abundantly clear. Dissents exist for a reason; I invite you to explore it.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  2. #102
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,634

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    No, not really. The vast majority of times, it is a literacy issue, and only for one of them.
    Or both, but in this case, it is only you. You did not understand the simple english of my post, and you are compounding the issue by ignoring it.



    The rules of grammar are not about what you "feel". You are simply factually wrong here, and as I noted above, it is a literacy issue. You "feel" that way, but you are wrong, because of the fact that in a compound sentence, the dependent clause is subordinate to the independent one.
    Again, interpretation. I did not say that I felt that it meant something particular, I said that I feel that it is clear and concise. Really now, is your reading comprehension that astoundingly bad?

    And it is an ablative absolute that is the issue with the 2nd Amendment and accordingly it should read, “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.”



    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  3. #103
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    07-22-09 @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Yes, in terms of the weapon, not the person.
    That statement makes no sense in context to what I posted previously.
    In other words, the Second Amendment must be viewed through the eyes of Article 1 Section 8, which only discusses the militia. It says that the Second Amendment was made with the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the militia.
    How can this only apply to weapons? It talks about the purpose of the Second Amendment in general, not about weapons.


    The court in Stevens cited ONLY Miller, and offered no textual support FROM Miller for its assertion.
    Excuse me, I meant other cases cited by Warin, which is what we were originally talking about.

    No. But what I said should be abundantly clear. Dissents exist for a reason; I invite you to explore it.
    Of course dissents exist for a reason, because not all judges will agree. What exactly is this supposed to demonstrate?

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Arrow Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Again, interpretation.
    No, no interpretation, just the bald facts about clauses and compound sentences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I did not say that I felt that it meant something particular, I said that I feel that it is clear and concise. Really now, is your reading comprehension that astoundingly bad?
    Not as bad as your memory. . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I feel that the 2nd is clear and concise, and that it speaks of a collective right that incoporates the individual right...
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    And it is an ablative absolute that is the issue with the 2nd Amendment and accordingly it should read,
    Ablative absolute is a Latin construction, and imitations thereof in English are common in the works of authors who were well studied in Latin. The founders were such authors, and I am certain that our second amendment reads exactly as they meant it to read. I'll take the founder's decision, since they were well studied in Latin, over yours, as to how it "should read".

    Furthermore, it is still a dependant clause construction, and the ablative absolute is not an exclusionatory construction. What that means is, it merely points out one good reason, possibly among many, for what stands alone in the independent clause. It does NOT rule out other reasons or circumstances.

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Arrow Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Or both, but in this case, it is only you. You did not understand the simple english of my post, and you are compounding the issue by ignoring it.
    What makes you think I did not understand what you typed here ? :

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Obviously, when people disagree about what something means, it means that there is an interpretation issue.
    I understood your assertion, it is simply inaccurate. I already detailed why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    No, not really. The vast majority of times, it is a literacy issue, and only for one of them.

  6. #106
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    What do you think I mean when I say "None of the government's business" ?
    What part of the Constitution limits them?


    Based on what ? What marriage benefits or drug regulations are in the Constitution and Bill of Rights ?
    Do you not understand that there were laws on the books that didn't make it into the Constitution?

    Actually, you were, when you mentioned the Amish and Quakers . . .
    And now we're talking about something different. Try answering the question.

    Why don't you decribe the actual bill you are talking about, and how it would ever get passed into law. Define these "extra taxes" or give me an example in American history.
    A special tax imposed on people of a particular religion.

    I don't think that is what you are doing, but no, I do not.
    Why not? Doesn't seem to fit with your simplistic framework.

    YOUR logic lead you to extrapolate there. I am not responsible for your "freestylin".
    It's the fact that your logic is so basic that leaves these questions open.

    That is teaching it.

    No-one can stop a kid from closing his eyes and praying before a test, and no one needs any law or policy regarding it.
    It's not a question of "needs." It's a question of whether it's permissible if a teacher leads it, or if time is available for students.

    Then its not hindu, and its certainly not atheistic, and its certainly not Judaic, but most importantly, it is not worth wasting one minute of school time on.
    The fact that you don't think it's worth wasting time on doesn't bear on its constitutionality.

    I guess I don't get this comment. You asked :

    and I replied :

    Your comment did not provide the specificity I was seeking, and seems to be a non-sequitur. It is not my political views at issue, but the fact that there isn't a word about funding for sectarian institutions in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So, the founders delineated the jobs of the government, or its "business", and the funding you mention was not on their list, so, as I stated earlier, it is None of the government's business.
    The Bill of Rights is not a positive grant of power to Congress. It is a restriction. I'm asking you if your reading on the BoR restricts Congress from funding sectarian institutions. There are many, many ways in which this can happen, and I'm just amused that you think you've figured it all out.

    While I realize this was not addressed to me, I would like to point out . . .

    I'm not certain if you were talking about a point in history prior to the fourteenth, but after it, states are barred from violating any of the same rights the fed is.
    That's not the case, per celticlord's point above.

    Furthermore, the poster in question was not referring to the 14th amendment as limiting the states. He was arguing (erroneously) that the amendments in and of themselves limited the states simply because they referred to "the people."




    Basically, my biggest problem with all this is that you're taking an incredibly simplistic approach to what is actually a very complex issue. It's easy to say something is not that hard if you eliminate all nuance and replace it with sweeping rules. The fact is that your approach is misguided, unimplementable, and completely contrary to the past 220 years of history.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And now we're talking about something different. Try answering the question.
    LOL This is talking eh ?

    What I have already posted already addresses your rebuttals.

    If you claim not, I will put together a post with every question you have in your last post, completely answered by an already posted quote by me.

  8. #108
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    While personally I don't believe that the Second Amendment applies to regular citizens being able to own guns....
    You know that the SCotUS has ruled on this, and says that it does -- right?

  9. #109
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    07-22-09 @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You know that the SCotUS has ruled on this, and says that it does -- right?
    I'm entirely aware of what the Supreme Court has said about the 2nd Amendment, doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

  10. #110
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    I'm entirely aware of what the Supreme Court has said about the 2nd Amendment, doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
    Hmm.
    What do they call it when you disagree with the controlling authority?
    Pissing into the wind?

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •