- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
There's no case to be made - its a matter of settled law.You could make that case....
There's no case to be made - its a matter of settled law.You could make that case....
A case does not need to be made for the RKBA. If you seek to abridge the right, you must make a case against it.You could make that case for the hunter who needs to shoot game to feed his family, but definitely not for the sport in a country that is supposed to be civilized.
ricksfolly
Funny thing is, if liberals such as yourself read the 2nd like you do the rest of the constitution, there would be an entitlement program set up to tax the rich to provde guns for people that cannot afford them.
Precnditioned bias? Not from -this- side.
Here's a slippery slope argument from Posner:
Food for thought. It certainly exposes the hypocrisy of Scalia's jurisprudence.
That's the trouble with you obsessed gun nuts, you make too many assumptions about things you know nothing about and justify them with meaningless rhetoric and obfuscation.
Try meeting the gist of the debate head-on next time, without the childish accusations.
ricksfolly
You could make that case for the hunter who needs to shoot game to feed his family, but definitely not for the sport in a country that is supposed to be civilized.
ricksfolly
As opposed to anti-gun loons, such as yourself, who just make stuff up and cannot support a premise to save their life.That's the trouble with you obsessed gun nuts, you make too many assumptions about things you know nothing about and justify them with meaningless rhetoric and obfuscation.
Try meeting the gist of the debate head-on next time, without the childish accusations.
ricksfolly
The Eleventy-Seventh Amendment, ratified by William Wallace in 1066.another idiotic claim. where in the constitution is this delineation discussed?
The Eleventy-Seventh Amendment, ratified by William Wallace in 1066.
That's the trouble with you obsessed gun nuts, you make too many assumptions about things you know nothing about and justify them with meaningless rhetoric and obfuscation.
Try meeting the gist of the debate head-on next time, without the childish accusations.
ricksfolly
The funny thing is citing a circuit judge to counter a supreme court justice when its clear that you really don't understand the position of either
>>Speaking of obsessed nuts going off on things they know nothing about, what could possibly be "uncivilized" about sport shooting?
One of these days you're going to run out of bumper sticker slogans.If you want to make hunting a real sport, give the deer rifles...
>>One of these days you're going to run out of bumper sticker slogans.
That certainly explains the content of your posts - but, you're doing the best you can, and that's all anyone can ask.>>
Glad you brought it up... Bumper stickers and graffiti are the only words all people can relate with and consistently understand.
>>
If you want to make hunting a real sport, give the deer rifles...
ricksfolly
:no:
rof:
What the Founders of the US said about guns:
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)
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)
Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)
Speaking of obsessed nuts going off on things they know nothing about, what could possibly be "uncivilized" about sport shooting?
One of these days you're going to run out of bumper sticker slogans.
Even funnier is nine exalted people, selected for their intelligence and open minds to make logical decisions, playing politics.
ricksfolly
Not a single one of those quotations you cite disproved the fact that the second amendment is a conditional sentence. Ergo, the original intent of the second amendment can only be interpreted to mean that when a well-regulated militia ceases to be necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed. That's just what the sentence means.
Let's analyze your quotes, Goshin, to see exactly if they help your case:
These simply describe what a militia is composed of, and do not bear on the conditionality of the second amendment. Nobody is disputing the fact that the militia is composed of the people.
In fact, these quotes do you more harm that good, Goshin. The quotes above cannot reasonably be construed to include the National Guard asa type of "militia," thus they prove that the militia as the Framers understood it doesn't exist any more.
Considering that he was writing at a time when militias were still commonplace, I don't see how this bears on the conditionality of the second amendment whatsoever.
I'm sorry, what was Samuel Adams's role in writing the Constitution?
Even assuming he did have a role in writing the second amendment, there is nothing in this quotation that demonstrates a right to gun ownership in the Constitution, merely that the Constitution does not preclude gun ownership.
As for the rest of your quotations, they don't really bear on the issue at all. Like I said, I don't think that cherry-picking from the writings of the founding fathers is a good way to determine what the law is, but if you are going to do that you might want to at least cherry pick quotes that actually provide support for your position.
I've adopted the same position as Judge Posner. If you cannot refute him then you cannot refute me.Look -- its YOUR position and so it is up to YOU to back it up.
That isn't my claim at all. You clearly haven't been reading or understanding my posts. Please re-read the thread. I have clearly stated my position is that the keep and bear clause is contingent on the militia clause. This does not mean that one must be in the militia to keep and bear, merely that the keep and bear clause is logically contingent on truth of the militia clause.You claim tha the intent of the people involved in the 2nd that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, ones actions must be in direct relation to service in the militia.
False. Please see my refutation of Goshin above for why "quotes" from the personal writings of the founding fathers are merely red herrings to this discussion.To do that, you have to quote statements from those people that support that position. If your source has those quotes, then feel free to copy and paste them, but without those quotes, your argument is unsound.
Fact of the matter is, there are no quotes to that effect, you know it, and you're simply trying to dodge the issue.
I've adopted the same position as Judge Posner. If you cannot refute him then you cannot refute me.
I cannot think of a more brazenly intellectually lazy statement than that. You're hiding behind someone else because you cannot muster your own argument. This is truly one of the very saddest posts in Debate Politics history.
You can't even successfully describe what Posner said.