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 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 164

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

  1. #51
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,478

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    .

    The reason I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to regular citizens is this:


    .

    One of the many reasons I do think it applies to individuals is this:


    Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
    safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
    the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

    Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
    inclined or determined to commit crimes
    . Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
    better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
    may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
    Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

    John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
    defense."
    (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
    people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
    99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
    atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
    we need them every hour
    ." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

    George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
    Debates at 380)

    Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
    almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
    Chronicle.)

    Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
    334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

    James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
    other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
    On what is the militia:

    George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
    Debates, 425-426)

    Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
    include all men capable of bearing arms
    ." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

    James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
    best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
    emphasis added.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
    standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
    does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
    to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
    militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
    by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
    but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)

    Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

    Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
    of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
    (Federalist Paper #29)

    "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
    and equipped."
    (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
    something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
    is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
    Last edited by Goshin; 06-06-09 at 11:32 AM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #52
    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 Goshin View Post
    One of the many reasons I do think it applies to individuals is this:




    On what is the militia:
    Personally I don't subscribe to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. So I will respectfully disagree with you.

  3. #53
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:49 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    Personally I don't subscribe to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. So I will respectfully disagree with you.
    So . . . your idea of Constitutional interpretation is making up things out of whole cloth to get it to mean what you want it to mean? That's what the passage you quoted does.
    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.

  4. #54
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,478

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    Personally I don't subscribe to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. So I will respectfully disagree with you.

    Ah. So, it means whatever you say it means then?

    Or whatever is expedient? Pragmatic?

    If so, we may as well not have a Constitution. The alternative, btw, is a government whose powers are all but unlimited.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #55
    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?

    The Constitution is in English, it does not need to be interpreted , it needs to be obeyed by any and all government entities on U.S. soil.

  6. #56
    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
    So . . . your idea of Constitutional interpretation is making up things out of whole cloth to get it to mean what you want it to mean? That's what the passage you quoted does.
    No, I believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the context of the here and now, not in the image of a world that is dead and gone.

  7. #57
    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 Voidwar View Post
    The Constitution is in English, it does not need to be interpreted , it needs to be obeyed by any and all government entities on U.S. soil.
    Even original intent is an interpretation. The Constitution is vague, it does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Interpretation is a must.

  8. #58
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:49 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    No, I believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the context of the here and now, not in the image of a world that is dead and gone.
    Which is the same thing. If the words change meaning according to whomever's reading them, then they mean nothing at all.
    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.

  9. #59
    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
    Which is the same thing. If the words change meaning according to whomever's reading them, then they mean nothing at all.
    The words are vague for the very reason that as society changes so will the application of those words. Modernist interpretations by the courts are not made arbitrarily and there are some restrictions on the courts in order to ensure that they do not overstep their bounds.

  10. #60
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:49 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    The words are vague for the very reason that as society changes so will the application of those words.
    They aren't so vague.

    In some cases, they are general. But they aren't "vague." There are those who say they're vague simply so they can divine any meaning they want.

    Again, if they mean anything, they mean nothing.


    Modernist interpretations by the courts are not made arbitrarily
    Oh, in many cases, indeed they are. The 2nd Amendment debate is a great example. The 6th Circuit declared (US v. Warin) that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and not individuals and gave no real reasoning for it; they just declared it. Then, almost every other Circuit Court simply cited Warin as their backup for declaring the same thing. So, you have all sorts of court cases that cite nothing but each other as their Constitutional basis.


    and there are some restrictions on the courts in order to ensure that they do not overstep their bounds.
    Not on any practical level there aren't.
    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.

Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •