Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

TurtleDude said:

there was nothing to refute. You just make stuff up and do not support it

Click to expand...

yeah - you showed us how Reagan was a Democrat and I was wrong about him being a Republican. :roll:

You showed us how Reagan never signed any gun control bills into law as I claimed he did. :roll:

And then you provided evidence that he never supported or made statements supporting gun control laws. :roll:

The silence from the defenders of Heller and Scalia in response to my post 609 where I quoted from Scalia and showed how he ignored his own evidence that he cited is deafening.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point

Click to expand...

the point is that Scalia was led by ideology and NOT by history or the Constitution or anything else. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “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.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

Click to expand...

I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:

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.

Click to expand...

So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?

haymarket said:

yeah - you showed us how Reagan was a Democrat and I was wrong about him being a Republican. :roll:

You showed us how Reagan never signed any gun control bills into law as I claimed he did. :roll:

And then you provided evidence that he never supported or made statements supporting gun control laws. :roll:

Click to expand...

that's totally irrelevant. the issue is which party has raped the 2A

its the Democrats.

haymarket said:

The silence from the defenders of Heller and Scalia in response to my post 609 where I quoted from Scalia and showed how he ignored his own evidence that he cited is deafening.

Click to expand...

Must suck to have lost that vote 5-4. what is bad is that there are four dishonest justices on the wrong side. Stevens' dissent was one of the most pathetic things I have ever read coming out of the USSC.

TurtleDude said:

that's totally irrelevant.

Click to expand...

No - it is relevant because it proves you are incorrect in your partisan claims.

TurtleDude said:

Must suck to have lost that vote 5-4. what is bad is that there are four dishonest justices on the wrong side. Stevens' dissent was one of the most pathetic things I have ever read coming out of the USSC.

Click to expand...

Time will overturn it when the right wing ideologues finally leave the Court and sanity is returned to it.

haymarket said:

No - it is relevant because it proves you are incorrect in your partisan claims.

Click to expand...

what am I incorrect about

that every federal gun control infringement was a Democrat Scheme?

we get the fact that your posts want to pretend that gun rights being interfered with is some bipartisan scourge but that is wrong

Your Democrat Party is responsible for EVERY federal gun control law that interferes with the rights of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms

haymarket said:

Time will overturn it when the right wing ideologues finally leave the Court and sanity is returned to it.

Click to expand...

So you think there is no individual right to KBA? Yet you claim you support what Heller did

this appears to be more dishonest posting.

God help the Democrats if they vote to "end" an individual right to keep and bear arms

haymarket said:

The silence from the defenders of Heller and Scalia in response to my post 609 where I quoted from Scalia and showed how he ignored his own evidence that he cited is deafening.






the point is that Scalia was led by ideology and NOT by history or the Constitution or anything else. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller



I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:





So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?

Click to expand...

so the founders wanted to recognize a pre-existing "right" to serve in the military

LOL

TurtleDude said:

what am I incorrect about

Click to expand...

for starters, blaming Democrats and ignoring the support of Republicans including Ronald Reagan the conservative icon.

for a follow up - this

Your Democrat Party is responsible for EVERY federal gun control law that interferes with the rights of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms

Click to expand...

Nobodys right to keep and bear arms is being interfered with.

TurtleDude said:

so the founders wanted to recognize a pre-existing "right" to serve in the military

LOL

Click to expand...

Where are you getting such a statement from?

TurtleDude said:

So you think there is no individual right to KBA? Yet you claim you support what Heller did

this appears to be more dishonest posting.

God help the Democrats if they vote to "end" an individual right to keep and bear arms

Click to expand...

I told you before - I support that Heller gave the win to the right party but felt Scalia went way to far in his ideological decision which has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution - only achieving a right wing wet dream that took 25 years to achieve fruition. He could have simply ruled the law went to far, overturned it and that would have been the end of it.

And I have explained this to you before.

haymarket said:

Where are you getting such a statement from?

Click to expand...

well why don't you tell us what right was recognized in the 2A.

you claim Heller was wrong and should be overturned so you oppose the individual right even though you claim DC violated that right

so what pre-existing right was recognized by the 2A and noted in Cruikshank

haymarket said:

I told you before - I support that Heller gave the win to the right party but felt Scalia went way to far in his ideological decision which has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution - only achieving a right wing wet dream that took 25 years to achieve fruition. He could have simply ruled the law went to far, overturned it and that would have been the end of it.

And I have explained this to you before.

Click to expand...

that makes no sense

you are complaining about an individual right

none of the plaintiffs in Heller were members of a militia so consequently the only way for them to prevail was for an individual right to be recognized. If not, their case would have been dismissed due to standing

what is the RW wet dream

your posts really demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the entire legal issue in Heller.

there was no way to strike down the DC law and NOT ALSO find that the 2A recognizes an individual right not connected to militia service

Porchev said:

Yes it should be changed to this, so we can stop debating it endlessly:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

What the statement really is saying is "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."

No need to change it, people just need to learn how to read proper English. The latter half is the half that matters. That is the right being defined. The former half is just explanatory, and in no way limits the latter.

TurtleDude said:

that makes no sense

you are complaining about an individual right

none of the plaintiffs in Heller were members of a militia so consequently the only way for them to prevail was for an individual right to be recognized. If not, their case would have been dismissed due to standing

what is the RW wet dream

your posts really demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the entire legal issue in Heller.

there was no way to strike down the DC law and NOT ALSO find that the 2A recognizes an individual right not connected to militia service

Click to expand...

So you claim. But you provide no verifiable evidence of your claim.



So why then are you powerless to answer my questions about Heller and Scalia and refute the glaring contradiction in his own opinion?

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point

Click to expand...

the point is that Scalia was led by ideology and NOT by history or the Constitution or anything else. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “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.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

Click to expand...

I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:

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.

Click to expand...

So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?

and since you asked - the right wing wet dream is more and more and more guns in our nation.

haymarket said:

Since we do NOT have a militia any longer and have not had one for a very long time now and it has been replaced by professional standing armies - your concerns are irrelevant.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Like I said - you want to argue with Reagan - go for it.

The Second Amendment says nothing about government tyranny. It does say a whole lot about militia service. And that is the purpose of it.

Click to expand...

Now taking these two statements together it appears you say that the 2A has no value anymore because

1) it was about militia service, but the militia no longer exists (again your assumption that the founders believed that the only pre-existing right to be recognized was the laughable "right to serve in the federal militia") and that "right" can no longer be exercised.

Of course that makes no sense since serving in a federal militia is not a pre-existing right but is a "right" that could only occur after the federal government was created. Thus, an impossibility under CRUIKSHANK

then you claim that Heller's result was correct because the DC law prevented people (who were not in the militia and according to you cannot be since it no longer exists) from "exercising their rights" since they couldn't own handguns

Do you understand that these three different positions are mutually contradictory?

TurtleDude said:

Now taking these two statements together it appears you say that the 2A has no value anymore because

1) it was about militia service, but the militia no longer exists (again your assumption that the founders believed that the only pre-existing right to be recognized was the laughable "right to serve in the federal militia")

then you claim that Heller's result was correct because the DC law prevented people (who were not in the militia and according to you cannot be since it no longer exists) from "exercising their rights" since they couldn't own handguns

Do you understand that these three different positions are mutually contradictory?

Click to expand...

I do not know where you are getting this claim about a pre-existing right and the Founders but it is NOT from the Second Amendment. And that makes it irrelevant at best and a total absurdity at worst.

My position is not contradictory. The Court could have simply ruled that the DC law created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms without every approaching the militia issue.

You went to law school. I did not. I was always educated that a conservative approach to the law dictates that a judge always make the narrowest possible ruling without going further than necessary. That is exactly what Scalia betrayed in his ideological ruling. What happened to that tried and true time honored conservative approach?

haymarket said:

I do not know where you are getting this claim about a pre-existing right and the Founders but it is NOT from the Second Amendment. And that makes it irrelevant at best and a total absurdity at worst.

My position is not contradictory. The Court could have simply ruled that the DC law created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms without every approaching the militia issue.

You went to law school. I did not. I was always educated that a conservative approach to the law dictates that a judge always make the narrowest possible ruling without going further than necessary. That is exactly what Scalia betrayed in his ideological ruling. What happened to that tried and true time honored conservative approach?

Click to expand...

YOU CANNOT claim that the DC law interfered with a right of citizens to keep and bear arms without admitting an individual right

you see, to do so would ignore the concept of standing

haymarket said:

Yes, I am 100% serious. I am asking for specifics.

Again, are you able to cite examples where the government created an environment where the people were not able to keep and bear arms.

I stated that the DC handgun law was such an example but one could easily argue that I am wrong since it still allowed for long guns to fulfill that right. So what are your other examples from reality here in the USA?

Click to expand...

your argument here contradicts your claim the the right recognized in the 2A is to be exercised only when in the militia

TurtleDude said:

YOU CANNOT claim that the DC law interfered with a right of citizens to keep and bear arms without admitting an individual right

you see, to do so would ignore the concept of standing



your argument here contradicts your claim the the right recognized in the 2A is to be exercised only when in the militia

Click to expand...

If there was no individual right declared before Heller, how then did people keep and bear arms for 200 years?

Is there any reason why the Court could not have declared that the people have a right to keep and bear arms within the context of providing for the militia thereby allowing the various clauses of Article I Section 8 on the militia to clearly and unmistakably come into play regarding laws controlling guns in the hands of the people? I suspect there was no reason why this approach could not be taken which would have established the right but also the ability of Congress to regulate it.

But then the right wing cause celebre would not have been achieved then would it? That is a rhetorical question.

And again, all you give me is your opinion and no evidence to support it. If your opinion on standing is so correct and matter of fact, why then did four other Supreme Court justices not see it your way? the fact that they did not see it your way plus the fact that you provide no evidence for your claim tells me it is simply your opinion based only on your political beliefs.

I am retiring for the night and will look for your answer in the morning.

I would appreciate it if you would speak to my post #666 giving the evidence from the Scalia opinion and the contradictions in his opinion which are the opposite of the Amicus Brief from the linguistic experts he cited as helping him with the meaning of the Amendment.

haymarket said:

If there was no individual right declared before Heller, how then did people keep and bear arms for 200 years?

And again, all you give me is your opinion and no evidence to support it. If your opinion on standing is so correct and matter of fact, why then did four other Supreme Court justices not see it your way? the fact that they did not see it your way plus the fact that you provide no evidence for your claim tells me it is simply your opinion based only on your political beliefs.

Click to expand...

there was no right to sodomy either and people were being buggered for years.

Four justices are statists who don't like people owning guns. Stevens' pathetic dissent basically comes down to the USSC should follow corrupt court of appeals decisions that were based on the fraudulent belief that since CRUIKSHANK says the Bill of rights DID NOT CREATE (duh, it merely recognized it) a RKBA, none existed. that is the logic some appellate courts used to uphold laws that targeted freed blacks and "Papist immigrants"

but lets get back to all the contradictions in your own statements

How could have Heller struck down laws that infringed on the rights of NON-miliita members without the decision recognizing an individual right

and since you said the militia no longer exists you are really in a bad position

TurtleDude said:

there was no right to sodomy either and people were being buggered for years.

Click to expand...

I do not know what that interesting tidbit has to do with the topic but are you now going to assert an individuals right to that practice as you have with guns? It looks like my comparisons to NAMBLA have been correct. Either that or you just introduced something which has no relevance here.

So I ask you again....If there was no individual right declared before Heller, how then did people keep and bear arms for 200 years when they were NOT in the militia?

Four justices are statists who don't like people owning guns

Click to expand...

.

You miss the point. Lets try and get back to it. You stated that because of STANDING Scalia had to approach his decision the way he did inventing this concept of the individual right divorced from any militia language. You have offered no proof supporting this claim but lets go with it for a second. Are we actually to believe for a moment that four other justices who have many collective years on the court do not understand the basic idea of legal standing? Is that really your position because it seems absurd in the extreme. And there is nothing in Heller which states what you claim on this entire STANDING issue.

How could have Heller struck down laws that infringed on the rights of NON-miliita members without the decision recognizing an individual right

Click to expand...

They simply could have declared that the right to keep and bear arms was negated by the DC law on handguns while affirming that the Congress was given powers to regulate guns from Article I Section 8 via the several militia clauses as well as other clauses even though the militia has been effectively transformed and changed into a standing army, the national guard and professional police forces.

I stated that earlier.

And you are ignoring my post 666 which you seem powerless to refute. Please speak to it.

haymarket said:

I do not know what that interesting tidbit has to do with the topic but are you now going to assert an individuals right to that practice as you have with guns? It looks like my comparisons to NAMBLA have been correct. Either that or you just introduced something which has no relevance here.

So I ask you again....If there was no individual right declared before Heller, how then did people keep and bear arms for 200 years when they were NOT in the militia?



.

You miss the point. Lets try and get back to it. You stated that because of STANDING Scalia had to approach his decision the way he did inventing this concept of the individual right divorced from any militia language. You have offered no proof supporting this claim but lets go with it for a second. Are we actually to believe for a moment that four other justices who have many collective years on the court do not understand the basic idea of legal standing? Is that really your position because it seems absurd in the extreme. And there is nothing in Heller which states what you claim on this entire STANDING issue.



They simply could have declared that the right to keep and bear arms was negated by the DC law on handguns while affirming that the Congress was given powers to regulate guns from Article I Section 8 via the several militia clauses as well as other clauses even though the militia has been effectively transformed and changed into a standing army, the national guard and professional police forces.

I stated that earlier.

And you are ignoring my post 666 which you seem powerless to refute. Please speak to it.

Click to expand...

wrong-again you have posted internally contradictory arguments.

you cannot claim Heller did the right thing while claiming that the second amendment-unlike other parts of the bill of rights-was only a collective right

the four other justices' dissents are a nadir in Constitutional scholarship

TurtleDude said:

wrong-again you have posted internally contradictory arguments.

you cannot claim Heller did the right thing while claiming that the second amendment-unlike other parts of the bill of rights-was only a collective right

the four other justices' dissents are a nadir in Constitutional scholarship

Click to expand...

My claim about the right decision in Heller is that the Court decided for the correct side as the law went too far. And I just explained to you how they could have decided the case with the party winning. There is no contradiction. If the Court wanted to declare an individual right they simply could have declared that the right to keep and bear arms was negated by the DC law on handguns while affirming that the Congress was given powers to regulate guns from Article I Section 8 via the several militia clauses as well as other clauses even though the militia has been effectively transformed and changed into a standing army, the national guard and professional police forces.

the four other justices' dissents are a nadir in Constitutional scholarship

Click to expand...

Right case - wrong opinion. The majority opinion from Scalia qualifies however. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “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.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

Click to expand...

I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:

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.

Click to expand...

So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?

haymarket said:

My claim about the right decision in Heller is that the Court decided for the correct side as the law went too far. And I just explained to you how they could have decided the case with the party winning. There is no contradiction. If the Court wanted to declare an individual right they simply could have declared that the right to keep and bear arms was negated by the DC law on handguns while affirming that the Congress was given powers to regulate guns from Article I Section 8 via the several militia clauses as well as other clauses even though the militia has been effectively transformed and changed into a standing army, the national guard and professional police forces.

Click to expand...

claiming that this only part of the bill of rights failed to acknowledge an individual right is just silly.

what prior natural right do you claim the founders wanted to recognize

give it up Haymarket, you have twisted your arguments into a pretzel and they are contradicting each other