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 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 164

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

  1. #131
    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
    - You have repeatedly MISUNDERSTOOD and TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT things that I have stated IN SIMPLE ENGLISH.
    Proiduce the quote box of me doing so and we will discuss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    - This DOES mean that one Interpretation is incorrect.
    Yeah, you are just now understanding what I told you back on page 8.

    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.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Does that help you a little? I am sure that you feel that you read everything that I have typed perfectly, but when you repeat it back, it is not accurate. I am sure that you don't agree, but I am the one that knows what I am not only saying, but meaning. I am sure that you don't understand a single aspect of what I am talking about, even though it is written in SIMPLE ENLGISH!
    I am not the one with the literacy issues, as we will soon see, you don't seem to understand the function of a conjunction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    You are taking it out of context... again. I said that it is clear and concise, and that means the meaning of it is just that. It has nothing to do with how I feel, that is just a statement regarding how it is.
    Simply False. Here is your quote, with the line before and after to provide context :
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Obviously, when people disagree about what something means, it means that there is an interpretation issue.

    I feel that the 2nd is clear and concise, and that it speaks of a collective right that incoporates the individual right...

    You, and others, disagree... correct interpretation is crucial.
    The way the rules of grammar work, specifically regarding conjunctions and compound sentences, you have Bodhi, in the middle sentence above, stated two things that you "feel", the first about the clarity, the second about the incorporation. Glad I could clear that up for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    "Should read" is how it DOES READ. It can flip flop either was, and it means that same exact thing.
    I simply disagree. The "because" would hang the right on militia involvement, whereas the actual wording puts it in its proper place, as a good reason, but not the only reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I am only translating it into the language of today so that you, and others like Goobieman, can understand it.
    I took 4 years of Latin so I do not need your assistance to understand ablative absolute, nor do I need your rewritten version to cloud the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Possibly among many? And you are trying to say that there is no "Interpretation"?
    I am decribing the properties and function of the ablative absolute contruction to a person who does not yet understand them. This is not interpretation, but education.

  2. #132
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:25 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,627

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Proiduce the quote box of me doing so and we will discuss it.
    Like that would help...


    Yeah, you are just now understanding what I told you back on page 8.
    Whatever you say buddy...


    I am not the one with the literacy issues, as we will soon see, you don't seem to understand the function of a conjunction.
    I am sure that you will make it all nice and easy to understand as always...


    Simply False. Here is your quote, with the line before and after to provide context :
    I understand what I said, because I said it and meant it... You took it out of context before and are apparently understanding it or keeping it in the correct context now, that is all. Seriously, you talk in circles worse than my ex.


    The way the rules of grammar work, specifically regarding conjunctions and compound sentences, you have Bodhi, in the middle sentence above, stated two things that you "feel", the first about the clarity, the second about the incorporation. Glad I could clear that up for you.
    It was already clear, glad you brushed up on your English though...


    I simply disagree. The "because" would hang the right on militia involvement, whereas the actual wording puts it in its proper place, as a good reason, but not the only reason.
    That is fine that you disagree. That is the most reasonable I have literally ever seen you be.


    I took 4 years of Latin so I do not need your assistance to understand ablative absolute, nor do I need your rewritten version to cloud the issue.
    The re-written version is not incorrect. It does not cloud the issue, but rather illuminates its meaning.


    I am decribing the properties and function of the ablative absolute contruction to a person who does not yet understand them. This is not interpretation, but education.
    Yeah, education on what not to do, if anything. Look, you only have a couple of Bachelor degrees, as do I, yet I have the MASTERs, therefore I - AM - THE - MASTER.

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

  3. #133
    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 Bodhisattva View Post
    SCOTUS is fallible, and this has been addressed a million times... why do you choose to ignore it? Oh, because you agree with THIS decision, that is why.
    As I said...
    You can disagree all you want -- it only means that, in terms of having a discussion regarding the 2nd amendment as law, and the legal issues surrounding it, your position is unsupportable.

    This applies to anyone and everyone that disagrees with a SCotUS ruling, regardless of who they are and what the ruling is.

  4. #134
    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
    Like that would help...
    It would help if you could, but you can't, because your smear attempt was a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Whatever you say buddy...
    The quote is right there, I told you on page 8.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I understand what I said, because I said it and meant it... You took it out of context before
    No, I did not, and to prove it, the second time I had to put your words in your face to refute you, I brought along the preceding and following sentences to show context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    and are apparently understanding it or keeping it in the correct context now, that is all. Seriously, you talk in circles worse than my ex.
    And my point remains, look what you claimed here :

    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?
    And look at you refute yourself right here :
    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...
    So yes, you did say that you felt it meant something in particular, specifically that, "it speaks of a collective right that incoporates the individual right".

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    It was already clear, glad you brushed up on your English though...
    Say whatever you need to feel you have squirmed out of it, the readers can see for themselves that you are the one with the literacy issues, in addition to a fibbing problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    The re-written version is not incorrect. It does not cloud the issue, but rather illuminates its meaning.
    Simply false. Your strawman has a slightly different meaning than the wording in the actual Bill of Rights, as I explained :

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    The "because" would hang the right on militia involvement, whereas the actual wording puts it in its proper place, as a good reason, but not the only reason.
    However, I think at this point, we can leave it up to the readers about who to trust regarding literacy or Latin issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Yeah, education on what not to do, if anything.
    I completed your education regarding ablative absolute, and now we have begun your lessons in Getting proven wrong by your own words 101, and Beginners Crow Consumption.

  5. #135
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:25 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,627

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    As I said...
    You can disagree all you want -- it only means that, in terms of having a discussion regarding the 2nd amendment as law, and the legal issues surrounding it, your position is unsupportable.

    This applies to anyone and everyone that disagrees with a SCotUS ruling, regardless of who they are and what the ruling is.
    That is ridiculous... you can support it with other means, as I and others have done.
    You simply don't like our arguments and dismiss them with a flick of your wrist saying that they are unsupportable.
    Logically, nothing could or would ever change if there were no other forms of support.
    There would be no 13th Amendment if we followed your logic, because any dissenting views would be unsupportable and irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  6. #136
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:25 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,627

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    It would help if you could, but you can't, because your smear attempt was a strawman.



    The quote is right there, I told you on page 8.



    No, I did not, and to prove it, the second time I had to put your words in your face to refute you, I brought along the preceding and following sentences to show context.



    And my point remains, look what you claimed here :


    And look at you refute yourself right here :


    So yes, you did say that you felt it meant something in particular, specifically that, "it speaks of a collective right that incoporates the individual right".



    Say whatever you need to feel you have squirmed out of it, the readers can see for themselves that you are the one with the literacy issues, in addition to a fibbing problem.



    Simply false. Your strawman has a slightly different meaning than the wording in the actual Bill of Rights, as I explained :



    However, I think at this point, we can leave it up to the readers about who to trust regarding literacy or Latin issues.




    I completed your education regarding ablative absolute, and now we have begun your lessons in Getting proven wrong by your own words 101, and Beginners Crow Consumption.
    You said that I said that I was talking about an individual right, that is what I meant by nothing in particular... of course I said something in particular, just not what you thought it was. This is beyond boring and you are one of the most obtuse people I have ever encountered. You have only proven that you know next to **** about how to properly communicate and, even though it is amusing to watch yourself get tripped up trying to think, talking with you is nearly a complete waste of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  7. #137
    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?

    hmmmmmmmmmmm
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Say whatever you need to feel you have squirmed out of it, the readers can see for themselves that you are the one with the literacy issues, in addition to a fibbing problem.

  8. #138
    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 Bodhisattva View Post
    That is ridiculous... you can support it with other means, as I and others have done.
    You CAN... but, in a discussion regarding the law, if I state "this law violates/does not violate the Constitution because the SCotUS said so", your response to the opposite effect carries no weight.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You CAN... but, in a discussion regarding the law, if I state "this law violates/does not violate the Constitution because the SCotUS said so", your response to the opposite effect carries no weight.
    That's an assumption that the court is infallible, and history says otherwise, especially since the court has reversed itself before.

    Therefore, saying the court said so isn't good enough, one needs to point out the part of the Constitution violated and explain why it's a violation.

    Courts that rule favorably towards gun bans are violating the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment, for example.

  10. #140
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    That's an assumption that the court is infallible, and history says otherwise, especially since the court has reversed itself before.
    No, its not.

    When the question is "Under US law, does the 2nd amendment protect an individual right" the answer is "yes" -- because that's the curent holding of the court. Now, that holding is logically and historically and legally sound, but all of that is beside that particular point.

    If you'd like to discuss the soundness of that decision, that's fine, if you'd like to argue that the law should change, that's fine, but in the context of what the law corrently says, the court's pronouncement is the final word.

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •