• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

See OP for 2-pat question


  • Total voters
    17
But the second amendment has not currently been incorporated, which means it does not currently apply to the states (except for in the 9th circuit).

The Second Amendment applied to all states the day the final state ratified the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states, just the federal government.

They do now.

Every single one of them.

Have done so for the longest time.

Guess what?

The Second Amendment applies to all fifty states. The states aren't required to pass any laws of their own or nothin', the Constitution has supreme authority.

Has ever since it was ratified, even if it took a war to settle that issue.
 
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. :lol:

The decision that states the Second Amendment is an individual right is consistent with the pre-Miller interpretation. Miller was based on numerous errors and flaws, and is wrong.

There's that.

Then there's the Second Amendment's use of the phrase "the people", not "the militias", a disctinction the men that wrote the Amendment, being master of the language they were, would have made if that distinction was intended.

There's that.

Then, of course, we all know there are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns and those who dig.

I don't feel like digging.
 
You are absolutely correct. SCOTUS has screwed up royally on several notable occasions.

What I think many of us would like to know is, whether Smash has anything backing up his position other than just opinion?

He doesn't accept original intent, and I presume constructionism is out.
He doesn't agree with existing SCOTUS law on the subject.
I'm wondering if there's anything more there than "the Constitution should mean whatever I WANT it to mean!"

G.

Good questions, I am a little screwy and think that the individual right is wrapped in the collective right concerning militias. I have adjusted my stance, which used to be more like Smash's, I think.
 
They have no choice they will rule against Chicago like they did with DC.

The 2nd Adm is very clear on this.
 
While personally I don't believe that the Second Amendment applies to regular citizens being able to own guns


I am genuinely curious as to your interpretation of the 2A. Who do you believe it grants arms to?
 
- 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.

- This DOES mean that one Interpretation is incorrect.

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

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.

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! :lol:

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.

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 :
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.

"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.

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.

Possibly among many? And you are trying to say that there is no "Interpretation"? :rofl

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.
 
Proiduce the quote box of me doing so and we will discuss it.

Like that would help... :roll:


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... :allhail
 
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. :lol:

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.
 
Like that would help... :roll:

It would help if you could, but you can't, because your smear attempt was a strawman.

Whatever you say buddy...

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

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.

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 :

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 :
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".

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.

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 :

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.


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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
hmmmmmmmmmmm
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
hmmmmmmmmmmm

Originally Posted by Voidwar
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.

Not many things are as rich as True Irony, Voidwar... :lol:
 
I'm not the one who told a bald faced lie right here, am I ?

I did not say that I felt that it meant something particular, I said that I feel that it is clear and concise.
 
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.

I am not sure that I agree, Isee your point, but laws change. They come and go, this can only occur because the differing response DOES carry weight.
 
I'm not the one who told a bald faced lie right here, am I ?

You certainly are the bald faced liar, I explained that I was referring to your statement that I only felt that it was an individual right. You will not admit this truth and continue to...

Voidwar
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.

;)
 
The verdict is in... I win.
 
at lying . . .
 
from post #102

from post #78


Dude, get an IQ already...

That is not a lie, it is, at worse, poor communication by me regarding your misrepresentation of what I said prior to that regarding Hamiltons post, if I remember correctly... you'r pathetic. :doh
 
hmmmmmmmmm
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, (at worse ? trying for "at worst" ?) in addition to a fibbing problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom