Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

haymarket said:

The toilet paper I used this morning has more utilitarian use than your precious preamble to the bill of rights.

Click to expand...

another fail.....

QUESTION TO YOU:

are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution declaratory and restrictive on the federal government?........YES OR NO?

ernst barkmann said:

another fail.....

QUESTION TO YOU:

are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution declaratory and restrictive on the federal government?........YES OR NO?

Click to expand...

Well everything that is a statement declares something if that is what you mean. And the federal government certainly has restrictions on it in many many many ways from many different parts of the Constitution.

But if that is not good enough for you - and practical common sense answers rarely are - you will have to explain to me what you mean by those two terms and what your agenda is in using them. I went online and tried to research the terms as you use them and all I got was a small number of right libertarian sites. The terms seem to have the cache of sacred scripture to the far right but are virtually meaningless to anybody else not clued in to the cause celebre.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...own-into-declaratory-and-restrictive-clauses/

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti10.html

Why is that? Who is the apostle of this new gospel and why are they preaching it and why are you a convert to it?

haymarket said:

The Preamble to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.
The preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution.

What is there about these realities that seem to confound and befuddle you so much?

Oh wait!!!! :doh I get it now!!!! :doh You don't like the contents of the Constitution preamble but you do like the contents of the bill of rights preamble.

Now it all makes sense. :roll:

Click to expand...

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

ernst barkmann said:

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Click to expand...

yup - thats it. :roll:

so what? Its not part of the Constitution. :doh

haymarket said:

yup - thats it. :roll:

so what? Its not part of the Constitution. :doh

Click to expand...

again fail, the amendments 1-10 were ratified and they are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government

ernst barkmann said:

again fail, the amendments 1-10 were ratified and they are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government

Click to expand...

I see you cannot answer my questions posed to you in post 927 after I was good enough to answer your question. Typical. :roll:

as a courtesy to you, here they are again

Well everything that is a statement declares something if that is what you mean. And the federal government certainly has restrictions on it in many many many ways from many different parts of the Constitution.

But if that is not good enough for you - and practical common sense answers rarely are - you will have to explain to me what you mean by those two terms and what your agenda is in using them. I went online and tried to research the terms as you use them and all I got was a small number of right libertarian sites. The terms seem to have the cache of sacred scripture to the far right but are virtually meaningless to anybody else not clued in to the cause celebre.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...ctive-clauses/

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti10.html

Why is that? Who is the apostle of this new gospel and why are they preaching it and why are you a convert to it?

haymarket said:

i see you cannot answer my questions posed to you in post 927 after i was good enough to answer your question. Typical. :roll:

As a courtesy to you, here they are again

well everything that is a statement declares something if that is what you mean. And the federal government certainly has restrictions on it in many many many ways from many different parts of the constitution.

But if that is not good enough for you - and practical common sense answers rarely are - you will have to explain to me what you mean by those two terms and what your agenda is in using them. I went online and tried to research the terms as you use them and all i got was a small number of right libertarian sites. The terms seem to have the cache of sacred scripture to the far right but are virtually meaningless to anybody else not clued in to the cause celebre.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...ctive-clauses/

The Constitution For The United States, Its Sources and Its Applications- "Bill of Rights" Proposals

why is that? Who is the apostle of this new gospel and why are they preaching it and why are you a convert to it?

Click to expand...

it was already answered before you even asked it. #887

ernst barkmann said:

james madison -"the conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the states, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government.

Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the press, than that it declared the press to be wholly exempt from the power of congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by a number of the states, nor be calculated to extend the ground of public confidence in the government. Nay, more; the construction employed to justify the sedition act would exhibit a phenomenon without a parallel in the political world. It would exhibit a number of respectable states, as denying, first, that any power over the press was delegated by the constitution; as proposing, next, that an amendment to it should explicitly declare that no such power was delegated; and, finally, as concurring in an amendment actually recognising or delegating such a power.

Is, then, the federal government, it will be asked, destitute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous attacks which may be made on those who administer it?the constitution alone can answer this question. if no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the constitution--the answer must be, that the federal government is destitute of all such authority.

Click to expand...

Amendment I (Speech and Press): James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

ernst barkmann said:

it was already answered before you even asked it. #887




Amendment I (Speech and Press): James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

Click to expand...

I am not conversing with the ghost of Madison. I want your view on it.

haymarket said:

My statement was that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the US Constitution. Nothing you said in your post contradicts that or shows it to be not true.

Click to expand...

Your problem is that your interpretation of the Constitution demands the Constitution violate the principles is is founded upon. You read the words of the Constitution in a philosophical vacuum or worse, through a 20th Century communitarian filter that is entirely incompatible with the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights. Your allegience to statist, communitarian values, which came into being in 1917, forces you to render yourself blind to the foundational principles of the Constitution and argue against their binding action under law. A sad denial of reality that you believe demonstrates intelligence, how funny is that?

haymarket said:

Is this the part where I now get to make smartass comments about your reading comprehension or your intelligence?

Click to expand...

Go ahead, have at it, it will only make you appear more ridiculous than you already look.

haymarket said:

So where do we find those pre-existing rights outside of somebody's belief system? Do you have more quotes from the Court identifying just where those pre-existingrights actually could be found?

Click to expand...

The origin of those concepts and the form of government deemed "legitimate" under the social contract theory is usually associated with John Locke, Algernon Sidney and Francis Hutchenson. The concepts set-out by those writers was embraced by the founders / framers and they rejected the statist, absolutist political models of Hobbes, Bodin and Filmer. Please note; the communitarian model of Marx is not among the theories available to the founders / framers.

Their choice was either to accept that the King enjoyed a divine, unquestionable right to rule how he saw fit, OR that humans possess inherent rights, the most important being self-determination and the right to choose their government . . .

They chose the latter and embraced the political model that went with it and ratified a Constitution based on the following:




Those are the foundational principles that your allegiance to 20th Century statist / communitarian political theory demands you dismiss and ignore (which makes you sound so ridiculous when you try to discuss the Constitution).

haymarket said:

Rights are very simple to understand. People demand that they want a certain behavior protected by the government so they exert enough power or influence to get government to protect that behavior as a right. There is nothing complicated or mystical about that. Rights do not come from gods or giant beings floating in space dispensing them like Halloween candy to costumed trick or treaters in late October.

Click to expand...

Correct. And the Constitution is a contract that the poeple demanded that forces government to consider our rights to pre-exist the creation of government. You find it convenient to link the origin of rights to a deity (for ridicule value) but respecting the Constitution doesn't demand accepting a theological argument as the origin of rights. Just as long as you reject the thought that the government is the source of rights, you will be fine . . .

haymarket said:

So there are people who believe in things because they want to believe in them. And Courts have even quoted them and invented statements of belief on their own to boot. So what? that does not prove the existence of these rights outside of a belief system held by fellow believers because they have made a choice to believe.

Click to expand...

That your personal value system is at odds with foundational constitutional principles is your problem and not one that resides in the citizens who respect and honor the Constitution and demand government be confined to the Constitution's limits.

haymarket said:

Religion exists on such a self imposed belief system. People believe in the idea of natural rights the same way - they take it on faith and believe in it because they want to believe it. And for you to provide those statements of belief about where some people willfully want to believe rights come from does not make that fact nor reality that there are natural rights. It simply says that some people believe that.

Click to expand...

Again, your modern, enlightened personal value system demands you reject the foundational principles of the Constitution . . . That doesn't mean that government isn't contractually bound to act within those foundational principles and that SCOTUS enforce those principles on the operation of government. Sorry!

haymarket said:

And 500 more quotes from believers in natural rights does not prove their existence any more than the statements from ten million people prove the existence of God or gods or any other supernatural entity that cannot be proven to exist.

Click to expand...

They certainly do exist as far as the legitimate operations of government under the Constitution are concerned.

It's funny, your argument applies more to your personal opinion and position of purposeful denial of constitutional principles and their legal action than any argument in favor of natural rights theory and citing the evidence of their legal existence under Constitution. Just because you consider natural / inherent / pre-existing rights to be fiction (empirically) does not mean that they are legal fiction and it is quite ridiculous for you to argue against their existence in the face of unwavering legal decisions saying they do exist legally. LOL.

haymarket said:

How does that change the fact that Scalia listed it as a source for himself in his opinion?

Click to expand...

You don't know how citations work?

That Scalia cited and quoted a specific passage doesn't mean he is endorsing the entire body of the work. If one can find a staement that endorses your position in an argument that overall is opposed to you, so much the better . . .

Only what's represented at the citation (page 3 of the brief and only what's quoted and section 585 on page 394 of Tiffany's work) can be said to be applicable to the singular, specific point of law then being made or addressed.

Scalia cited the brief and Tiffany and quoted the brief's paraphrase of the 2nd Amendment to make his point that the declaratory / prefatory clause only declares a political reason why the pre-existing right was being secured from governmental injury, IOW, why the 2nd Amendment exists.

Tiffany, Section 585, page 394 makes the same point:

haymarket said:

Willie Orwontee said:

Please provide a full citation and a link to his opinion in Jones v. Walker, because you can not be trusted to provide an honest quotation or synopsis of any legal statement.

Click to expand...

sure thing Willie. Jones v. Walker, 13, F. Cas. 1059, 1065 (C.C.D. Va. n. d.) (no. 7507) , reprinted in Maeva Marcus, THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1789 - 1800. New York Columbia University Press, 2004. page 301.

It is further cited with footnotes in THE SECOND AMENDMENT - A Biography by Michael Waldman - Simon & Schuster 2014. page 62.

Click to expand...

I asked for a link because the opinion is not found in any search. I want to read Jay's opinion and the context of his preamble statement (which you purport to be specifically about the 2nd Amendment). I don't believe you and don't trust you (and I really don't trust Waldman) and again I ask you to provide a link to the actual opinion.

QFT:

haymarket said:

Q. What Supreme Court decision or federal law used it before Scalia in Heller?
A. None that I know of and none that you have cited.

Click to expand...

So, you are saying that SCOTUS can only quote previous statements by SCOTUS, that they can not elevate to the opinion of the Court a challenged lower court's opinion that they are affirming / sustaining?

haymarket said:

Not exactly. I am the one who simply says that one cannot dismiss the first half of the Amendment as Scalia does and place the emphasis on the second half .

Click to expand...

Well, if you simply say that then you are the one in opposition to the longstanding unwavering opinion of SCOTUS which demands we accept that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is in no manner dependent of the words of the Constitution for its existence.

Since that is certainly where you stand then you are the one admitting that your demonization of Scalia is simply politics and your politics is the reason why you ignore the SCOTUS precedent that demands Scalia dismiss the first half of the Amendment and reject any theory that the first half imparts conditions or qualifications or is in any way restrictive or constraining on the right to arms.

Thanks for admitting that (as if it wasn't blindingly apparent).

haymarket said:

Isn't it interesting that there is only one single amendment in the bill of rights which gives us the reason for creating that right and it is the Second?

Click to expand...

And there is an affirmation of the fundamental flaw in your understanding of the Constitution and which directly leads to your profundly and irredeemably incorect positions on the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not create the right.

The declaratory clause tells us a political reason why the original, fundamental, pre-existing, never surrendered/ fully retained, completely held out of any powers granted to government right is being forever protected from government injury . . .

haymarket said:

None of the others do that. But yet we are suppose to dismiss it as the NRA does with half of the Amendment on their lobby wall or as Scalia does. Sorry - I respect ALL of it.

Click to expand...

LOL, you respect none of it.

haymarket said:

Because you believe that our rights were handed out by gods in the sky like Halloween candy at the end of October. So you find reality "hilarious"? Got it.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would argue that the founders / framers rejected with every cell of their body that "God" has any part in governance. They rejected the theory that God endowed a divine right to rule in the King and that it was sacrilege to question his absolute authority . . . The reference to "rights endowed by our Creator" was merely a rhetorical device that is more to the point that the government, when premised on the "self-evident truths" of the Lockean social compact, is not the source of rights.

Feel free to continue with your misapplied hyperbolic accusations though, it's really working for you!

haymarket said:

Yes - statements of your fellow believers because they want to believe what they have chosen to believe because they believe it. So where did this pre-existingrights exist then? Where did they come from?

Click to expand...

Where did your communitarian values come from?

haymarket said:

You cannot answer that and still cling to your beliefs as anything but beliefs.

Click to expand...

Except I can point to centuries of legal action and enforcement of those principles by those who are bound by contract to "believe" it. You have nothing but the useless attempt to argue that 20th century communiarian theory is applicable to the Constitution, which is why you are forced to lie about what the Constitution is and and what it does and demonize / demean / denigrate and ridicule those who respect the Constitution.

haymarket said:

Oh my!!!! An enemy of the Constitution no less!!!! I guess in your world this is not simply a honest disagreement over different interpretations?

Click to expand...

Yes an enemy, it is readily apparent. This isn't a disagreement on simple "interpretation" you seek to undermine the foundation for legitimate authority and erect illegitimate authority on its ruins and usurp power never envisioned to be the domain of government.

haymarket said:

I must be a ENEMY OF THE CONSTITUTION because one justice made the difference in a 5 to 4 decision which turned upside down two centuries of precedent. Got it.

Click to expand...

No, you are an enemy because of what you did right there . . . Baldly lying about what SCOTUS has done to advance a political agenda . . .

There is no defense, you can not lie about the Constitution and advocate things in opposition to the Constitution and argue for the ignoring of foundational principles of the Constitution and not be considered an enemy of the Constitution.

Willie Orwontee said:

Your problem is that your interpretation of the Constitution demands the Constitution violate the principles is is founded upon.

Click to expand...

I accept the Constitution as it is written and DO NOT fill in the blanks with my own personal ideology.

You read the words of the Constitution .....

Click to expand...

.......... as they were written - not as I want them to be or wish them to be or after filtering them through the writings of others.

I asked you this question

Originally Posted by haymarket
So where do we find those pre-existing rights outside of somebody's belief system? Do you have more quotes from the Court identifying just where those pre-existingrights actually could be found?

Click to expand...

and your 'answer'

The origin of those concepts and the form of government deemed "legitimate" under the social contract theory is usually associated with John Locke, Algernon Sidney and Francis Hutchenson.

Click to expand...

I have read those authors and they simply presented their own beliefs which did not exist outside of their own belief system.

And the Constitution is a contract that the poeple demanded that forces government to consider our rights to pre-exist the creation of government.

Click to expand...

So I ask again, where did these so called "pre-existing rights' actually exist outside of the self imposed belief system of believers?

Their choice was either to accept that the King enjoyed a divine, unquestionable right to rule how he saw fit, OR that humans possess inherent rights, the most important being self-determination and the right to choose their government . . .

Click to expand...

Where do you get off saying there were only two choices and then define them for us? A belief in something does not make it real. Real life actions give us rights.

That your personal value system is at odds with foundational constitutional principles is your problem and not one that resides in the citizens who respect and honor the Constitution and demand government be confined to the Constitution's limits.

Click to expand...

What personal value system is that? The only thing I believe in is reality.

Just because you consider natural / inherent / pre-existing rights to be fiction (empirically) does not mean that they are legal fiction and it is quite ridiculous for you to argue against their existence in the face of unwavering legal decisions saying they do exist legally.

Click to expand...

No legal decision can make something which does not exist suddenly exist simply because of a belief. And until you can prove that these so called natural rights existed in something other than a belief system and indeed were pre-existing, all you have is your own rationalizations and that of fellow believers.

Willie Orwontee said:

You don't know how citations work?

Click to expand...

I know enough which is how to read English and the English that I read from the experts mentioned by Scalia say clearly that the right being discussed was connected to military service.

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...

All your verbage does not change that.

I asked for a link because the opinion is not found in any search. I want to read Jay's opinion and the context of his preamble statement (which you purport to be specifically about the 2nd Amendment). I don't believe you and don't trust you (and I really don't trust Waldman) and again I ask you to provide a link to the actual opinion.

Click to expand...

Everything ever written has not yet been linked. I gave you where to find it and now you have it.

You don't want to believe me? tough. It changes nothing that I provided you with the source of the statement from Jay.
You Don't want to trust me? tough. It changes nothing that I provided you with the source of the statement from Jay.

Well, if you simply say that then you are the one in opposition to the longstanding unwavering opinion of SCOTUS which demands we accept that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is in no manner dependent of the words of the Constitution for its existence.

Click to expand...

No opinion of any judge or court can make something only existing in a belief system suddenly real simply by repeating the belief in that belief.

So where did this right to bear arms exist before written in our constitutions? Show me where it resided and where it pre-existed outside of somebodys belief.

The reference to "rights endowed by our Creator" was merely a rhetorical device that is more to the point that the government, when premised on the "self-evident truths" of the Lockean social compact, is not the source of rights.

Click to expand...

Really? And your proof of this is what exactly? And who was this mysterious CREATOR is not a belief in God?

Yes an enemy, it is readily apparent.

Click to expand...

Resorting to silly name calling is a really poor substitute for definitive answers to my questions that you are powerless to answer such as where these so called pre-existing rights were before our constitutions.

But if being an ENEMY OF THE CONSTITUTION means I am on the other side of your interpretations - that is a badge of honor.

countryboy said:

Do you agree with these so-called "linguistic experts"?

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

To be brutally honest - I do not know enough about the subject of linguistics to offer a constructive and educated opinion that could effectively counter any of theirs.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, Haymarket originally said that the linguistic experts brief, "contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years" so he obviously thought he possessed a functional knowledge of linguistics, at a minimum to allow him to identify "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing".

Of course this was when he also believed that the linguistics experts brief was written to support Heller so he reflexively assumed that it was in opposition to his positions and it was perfectly safe to claim he read it and to say it contained "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing".

Now that it has been pointed out that the brief was written to support DC and actually argues his theory of the 2nd Amendment, he suddenly possesses insufficient understanding of the English language to even say if he agrees with it.

He is between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

The sad place he finds himself in is a product of the anti-Constitution political agenda he advances because the nurturing and maintenance of that agenda demands one abandon all intellectual integrity when discussing the Constitution.

Willie Orwontee said:

Well, Haymarket originally said that the linguistic experts brief, "contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years" so he obviously thought he possessed a functional knowledge of linguistics, at a minimum to allow him to identify "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing".

Click to expand...

Sadly, that seems to be one of the qualities of linguists.

Of course this was when he also believed that the linguistics experts brief was written to support Heller so he reflexively assumed that it was in opposition to his positions and it was perfectly safe to claim he read it and to say it contained "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing".

Click to expand...

It matters not to me who they wrote in support of - only that they came to this conclusion

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...

He is between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Click to expand...

As I did not write the Heller opinion I am in neither place. Although you could apply your quip to Justice Scalia since he went to the trouble of mentioning the opinion of the experts then for some reason came to the opposite conclusion.

The sad place he finds himself in is a product of the anti-Constitution political agenda he advances because the nurturing and maintenance of that agenda demands one abandon all intellectual integrity when discussing the Constitution.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means and apparently neither do you. What agenda do I have? How is my "agenda" - assuming you can identify it - anti-Constitution?

Willie Orwontee said:

Your problem is that your interpretation of the Constitution demands the Constitution violate the principles is is founded upon. You read the words of the Constitution in a philosophical vacuum or worse, through a 20th Century communitarian filter that is entirely incompatible with the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights. Your allegience to statist, communitarian values, which came into being in 1917, forces you to render yourself blind to the foundational principles of the Constitution and argue against their binding action under law. .

Click to expand...

that alone is more than sufficient and its undeniably accurate. I have said it for several years. Claiming that the 2A actually allows anything short of a complete gun ban is completely contrary to the entire foundation that the Founders operated upon.

haymarket said:

Sadly, that seems to be one of the qualities of linguists.



It matters not to me who they wrote in support of - only that they came to this conclusion





As I did not write the Heller opinion I am in neither place. Although you could apply your quip to Justice Scalia since he went to the trouble of mentioning the opinion of the experts then for some reason came to the opposite conclusion.



I have no idea what that means and apparently neither do you. What agenda do I have? How is my "agenda" - assuming you can identify it - anti-Constitution?

Click to expand...

I think the plain and patent answer is that your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment was crafted backwards--ie you clearly started with the desire to "prove" that Democrat schemes to ban, control, limit or restrict our gun rights were not unconstitutional and you twisted and contorted the meaning and words of the 2A and Article 1 Sec. 8 to establish that goal.

I think it is pretty well impossible for someone to objectively read either of those two clauses and come up with claims such as "shall not be infringed" actually allows "infringements" or that the militia clause or commerce clause were intended, designed or properly interpreted to give congress gun restriction powers

TurtleDude said:

I think the plain and patent answer is that your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment was crafted backwards--ie you clearly started with the desire to "prove" that Democrat schemes to ban, control, limit or restrict our gun rights were not unconstitutional and you twisted and contorted the meaning and words of the 2A and Article 1 Sec. 8 to establish that goal.

I think it is pretty well impossible for someone to objectively read either of those two clauses and come up with claims such as "shall not be infringed" actually allows "infringements" or that the militia clause or commerce clause were intended, designed or properly interpreted to give congress gun restriction powers

Click to expand...

That is what you think. Thank you for making it clear. You ahve a right to your opinion - no matter how incorrect it is about me and my views.

Here is what I think: you cannot counter what I have said so you try to come up with some attack on my position based on what you want to believe are my motivations.

haymarket said:

That is what you think. Thank you for making it clear. You ahve a right to your opinion - no matter how incorrect it is about me and my views.

Here is what I think: you cannot counter what I have said so you try to come up with some attack on my position based on what you want to believe are my motivations.

Click to expand...

there is no need to "counter" an Opinion that has been completely thrashed by Willie, myself and others yet again

the fact is, your interpretation of the 2A cannot be taken seriously by anyone who actually understands the value system of the men who wrote it and adopted it

TurtleDude said:

there is no need to "counter" an Opinion that has been completely thrashed by Willie, myself and others yet again

Click to expand...

feel free to present that OPINION and then present the post which COMPLETELY TRASHED it.

the fact is, your interpretation of the 2A cannot be taken seriously by anyone who actually understands the value system of the men who wrote it and adopted it

Click to expand...

And "by anyone" you mean gun aficionados on the right who post here in carefully controlled gun threads on a right libertarian website. That is fine as it is a teeny tiny very small universe and their opinion is not shared by the greater society.


I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment...


The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

haymarket said:

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

Click to expand...

You can keep repeating this tripe til the cows come home, but it still won't be true. It is nothing more than your ideologically driven opinion. An opinion which you admitted you really don't have the expertise to form. The 2A says absolutely nothing about "creating an environment".

haymarket said:

feel free to present that OPINION and then present the post which COMPLETELY TRASHED it.



And "by anyone" you mean gun aficionados on the right who post here in carefully controlled gun threads on a right libertarian website. That is fine as it is a teeny tiny very small universe and their opinion is not shared by the greater society.


I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment...


The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

Click to expand...

the pathetic repeating-for probably the TWENTIETH TIME this moronic recitation of what dishonest POS politicians have done after 1934 has absolutely ZERO RELEVANCE with what the 2A means and what the founders intended.

and you are not being honest in your assessment of those scum bag politicians. I think it is just as logical to believe they KNOW their actions violate the words of the founders but they figure they can get away with it because the courts have equally dishonest jurists

this is a classic case of you moving the goal posts. You have been beaten constantly over what the 2A really says so you pretend what other lefties and statists claim matters

countryboy said:

You can keep repeating this tripe til the cows come home, but it still won't be true. It is nothing more than your ideologically driven opinion. An opinion which you admitted you really don't have the expertise to form. The 2A says absolutely nothing about "creating an environment".

Click to expand...

Here is the bottom line. Those who hate the politics of gun owners OR see a political advantage in pushing laws that harass gun owners KNOW DAMN WELL that their schemes are unconstitutional. But they realize they cannot admit that so they have to engage in machinations, contortions and outright dishonesty to pretend that their hateful schemes are not unconstitutional. FDR started this crap and his minions, fan boys and toadies continue to do it.

TurtleDude said:

Here is the bottom line. Those who hate the politics of gun owners OR see a political advantage in pushing laws that harass gun owners KNOW DAMN WELL that their schemes are unconstitutional. But they realize they cannot admit that so they have to engage in machinations, contortions and outright dishonesty to pretend that their hateful schemes are not unconstitutional. FDR started this crap and his minions, fan boys and toadies continue to do it.

Click to expand...

And you know this how? mind reading?

countryboy said:

You can keep repeating this tripe til the cows come home, but it still won't be true. It is nothing more than your ideologically driven opinion. An opinion which you admitted you really don't have the expertise to form. The 2A says absolutely nothing about "creating an environment".

Click to expand...

What ideology is that?

The only expertise I denied was that of being a trained professional linguist.