Analyzing Heller v. D.C. 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

[Thoreau72]

That doesn't make any difference. I'm better at it than most of the so-called Second Amendment experts.

My point was that words and terms you describe as "ambiguous" are very much the opposite. Simple words that are easy to understand, in a context that is pretty straight forward, yet you seem not to understand what they mean.

 

[prometeus]

That doesn't make any difference. I'm better at it than most of the so-called Second Amendment experts.

Self proclaimed expertise demonstrated by calling simple words ambiguous. You must be a linguist...

 

[TurtleDude]

Self proclaimed expertise demonstrated by calling simple words ambiguous. You must be a linguist...

the only people who have conjured up ambiguity are those gun banning statists who hate the clear meaning to of the 2A

 

[prometeus]

the only people who have conjured up ambiguity are those gun banning statists who hate the clear meaning to of the 2A

I do not know what your direct experience with anti gun people is, but I still struggle to understand why they are so adamantly against guns. I do know that the vast majority clearly does not understand the issue at all, then there are some who just latch on to the idea because someone else they think is smart opposes guns and there are the control freaks who just wish to control the lives of others say like Bloomberg with his Napoleonic complex. What is your take?

 

[TurtleDude]

I do not know what your direct experience with anti gun people is, but I still struggle to understand why they are so adamantly against guns. I do know that the vast majority clearly does not understand the issue at all, then there are some who just latch on to the idea because someone else they think is smart opposes guns and there are the control freaks who just wish to control the lives of others say like Bloomberg with his Napoleonic complex. What is your take?

There are several types of anti gunners I have dealt with over my career that has included being a world class competitive shooter, an attorney for gun dealers, machine gun makers, shooting sports associations etc.

1) the ignorant low information gun restrictionist. These are the sheeple who think gun control actually controls criminals. a Subset are those who HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING done every time there is a mass shooting or tragedy. They really don't think things through but some of them will abandon gun banning once they are properly educated as to the facts (or are mugged or raped)

2) the machiavellians. Normally politicians they support gun control for two reasons

a) to pander to people in group one by suggesting "solutions" that placate the sheeple or by adopting gun control to stave off charges the politician is weak on crime

b) to punish or harass political opponents. Lots of lefties are upset with the amount of support the NRA and like minded groups funnel to pro gun candidates. THe goal is to cause the NRA to waste money defending our rights

3) the Pillow headed utopians. These are the morons who sing the barney happy song and figure if you ban guns you are making a "statement against violence". They are impervious to reason since emotion is what drives them. A subset of these pillow heads are people who are terrified of guns and want to ban that which causes them to wet themselves

4) the self interested gun banners and their supporters. Mainly criminals and their enablers.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Great. So you finally admit the only place these so called pre-existing natural rights are in the belief system of fellow believers. And you compare it to religious faith.

Now I call that progress

Can you prove the physical existence of any tenet of any political philosophy?

Where do the maxims of your political philosophy reside now? Are they wrapped in burlap, sealed in a vault in the bowels of the Kremlin? Have you ever seen them? Can you describe them? Are they bigger than a breadbox?

What exactly was the origin of those tenets your political philosophy is based on, were they hammered out on an anvil? If so, if humans created the physical manifestations of your political philosophy, when and where and by whom were these idols manufactured? If humans did not handcraft them were they simply mined from the Earth or were they given to your founders / framers by a race of alien beings?

IOW, how and when did these physical entities that manifest the tenets of your political philosophy, come into the possession of those people who formulated the political philosophy you embrace?

 

[Willie Orwontee]

So what EB?

The statements of fellow believers saying they believe as others believe is not evidence of anything other than the belief is held by believers who want to believe it.

What is political philosophy in the general sense?

Does any system of governance have as its foundational principles an object that has a physical presence on Earth, that can be said to "exist"?

What dictionary are you referring to where "philosophy" and "principles" are defined and understood to have a physical presence?

What principles of political philosophy can you point to that can be measured with a ruler, weighed, photographed, x-rayed, inspected with a mass spectrometer to discern its elementary composition?

 

[haymarket]

Can you prove the physical existence of any tenet of any political philosophy?

Aha! Wisdom is near. And that indeed is the point as the musings of dilettante thinkers are not physically real and provide nobody with anything of real substance. And such it is with natural rights.

Where do the maxims of your political philosophy reside now

What "political philosophy" would that be?

 

[haymarket]

What is political philosophy in the general sense?

Does any system of governance have as its foundational principles an object that has a physical presence on Earth, that can be said to "exist"?

What dictionary are you referring to where "philosophy" and "principles" are defined and understood to have a physical presence?

What principles of political philosophy can you point to that can be measured with a ruler, weighed, photographed, x-rayed, inspected with a mass spectrometer to discern its elementary composition?

Excellent. Now we are going somewhere.

Rights that people have are real and come from real actions from real people and real governments.

 

[Joe Steel]

Self proclaimed expertise demonstrated by calling simple words ambiguous. You must be a linguist...

No but I know how to use a dictionary.

 

[Joe Steel]

What is political philosophy in the general sense?

Does any system of governance have as its foundational principles an object that has a physical presence on Earth, that can be said to "exist"? ...

Yes. Most, if not all, systems recognize a sovereign, a single entity in which all authority is vested. In modern times, however, the sovereign has become a figurehead and has no real authority. The Queen of England is one such sovereign. In America, the People are sovereign and hold all authority.

 

[prometeus]

No but I know how to use a dictionary.

Maybe you will be kind enough to share with us where you found the words you call ambiguous, defined as such.

 

[NotreDame]

"Keep and bear arms" is in the so-called justification clause. So is "people." Both terms are ambiguous.

Irrelevant because the justification clause doesn't express the right and you are obsessing over language in the justification clause. The operative clause expresses the right.

Second the word "people" is about as ambiguous as the word "people" in the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 9th and 10th Amendments. The meaning of the word people is known in those amendments and there hasn't been presented any sufficient reason to think the word "people" in the 2nd amendment has a different meaning.

Finally, the words "keep and bear arms" is a meaning known as the right to keep and bear arms preceded the 2nd Amendment in the common law.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes. Most, if not all, systems recognize a sovereign, a single entity in which all authority is vested. In modern times, however, the sovereign has become a figurehead and has no real authority. The Queen of England is one such sovereign. In America, the People are sovereign and hold all authority.

which is why your scheme to disarm the supreme sovereign is idiotic

 

[NotreDame]

"Keep and bear arms" is in the so-called justification clause. So is "people." Both terms are ambiguous.

No, those words appear in the "operative clause." (Disregard last post, post number 438 where I mistakenly called it the justification clause. My fault for hastily posting before court). The operative clause expresses the right. Those words are not ambiguous.

Second the word "people" is about as ambiguous as the word "people" in the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 9th and 10th Amendments. The word "people" as in the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, etcetera, references an individual right of protection. There hasn't been presented any sufficient reason to think the word "people" in the 2nd amendment has a different meaning.

Finally, the words "keep and bear arms" is a meaning known as the right to "keep and bear arms" preceded the 2nd Amendment in the common law, and the common law defined those phrases. A quick reading of Blackstone's writings in this area is rather illuminative of this fact.

 

[Joe Steel]

Maybe you will be kind enough to share with us where you found the words you call ambiguous, defined as such.

Start with a dictionary.

 

[Joe Steel]

Irrelevant because the justification clause doesn't express the right and you are obsessing over language in the justification clause. The operative clause expresses the right.

My mistake. They appear in the so-called operative clause.

Second the word "people" is about as ambiguous as the word "people" in the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 9th and 10th Amendments. The meaning of the word people is known in those amendments and there hasn't been presented any sufficient reason to think the word "people" in the 2nd amendment has a different meaning.

Nonsense. The gun cult want to interpret "people" as the plural of person. It isn't.

Finally, the words "keep and bear arms" is a meaning known as the right to keep and bear arms preceded the 2nd Amendment in the common law.

That's gibberish.

 

[haymarket]

They appear in the so-called operative clause.
That's gibberish.

So called is a apt use of the phrase. All of the sudden, a one sentence Amendment is magically divided into two parts - the first one that can be ignored and discarded because it is no longer convenient for the gun lobby to accept it - while the second is elevated to holy scripture and is given a new title dishonestly declaring it to the the important part of the Amendment.

yup - thats gibberish.

 

[prometeus]

Start with a dictionary.

In other words you pulled that one out of your arse, just like the notion that people is something else than people.

 

[NotreDame]

Nonsense. The gun cult want to interpret "people" as the plural of person. It isn't.

I couldn't care less what the "gun cult" wants or what you perceive as their desire. We are discussing the reasoning, rationale, and evidence of the decision.

Now, we know the word "people" in the 4th Amendment is the plural of person and isn't discussing search and seizure rights of groups of people but individual right collectively. The same is true of the 1st Amendment use of the word "people." At this time, you have NO EVIDENCE to suggest or indicate the word "people" has a different meaning than the same word used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights in which it refers to an individual right in a collectively manner.

Finally, the words "keep and bear arms" is a meaning known as the right to keep and bear arms preceded the 2nd Amendment in the common law.

That's gibberish.

In other words, " I lack an adequate response." The right to bear arms was a right long recognized in the common law, expounded upon by Blackstone, and the words "keep and bear arms" were not ambiguous phrases to the ratifiers or the founding generation. They knew what those words meant because they existed and were defined in the common law.

Second, it is unadulterated non-sense to characterize those two words as ambiguous. The ratifiers and founding generation was not adopting something they could not understand, whose meaning was unknown, indiscernible, because they didn't understand the meaning of those two words.

What is "gibberish" is your B.S. response because your position is bankrupt, always has been in this thread.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Roberts had to change his opinion when he realized a decision against PPACA would destroy the near nonexistent credibility of the Court.

I disagree upholding the PPCA destroyed the courts credibility, Roberts upheld the law based on arguments the government never raised. Not only that but the constitution specifies any tax and spend bills originate in the house, whereas the care act originated in the senate, so he upheld a law and the basis he upheld it on make it facially unconstitutional.

 

[Joe Steel]

I couldn't care less what the "gun cult" wants or what you perceive as their desire. We are discussing the reasoning, rationale, and evidence of the decision.

Now, we know the word "people" in the 4th Amendment is the plural of person and isn't discussing search and seizure rights of groups of people but individual right collectively. The same is true of the 1st Amendment use of the word "people." At this time, you have NO EVIDENCE to suggest or indicate the word "people" has a different meaning than the same word used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights in which it refers to an individual right in a collectively manner. ...

In the Fourth Amendment, "people" refers to the sovereign. It protects the persons who comprise the sovereign, not because they are individuals, but because they are associated with the sovereign. The Fourth Amendment doesn't declare an individual right but a limitation of government power against the sovereign. If it helps, replace "people" with "king," "queen" or "sovereign" and consider the effect of the amendment.

In the First Amendment, the right of assembly is declared because "the people" cannot function with a meeting of individuals to discuss policy. The right is declared to ensure "the people" may form.

 

[TurtleDude]

In the Fourth Amendment, "people" refers to the sovereign. It protects the persons who comprise the sovereign, not because they are individuals, but because they are associated with the sovereign. The Fourth Amendment doesn't declare an individual right but a limitation of government power against the sovereign. If it helps, replace "people" with "king," "queen" or "sovereign" and consider the effect of the amendment.

In the First Amendment, the right of assembly is declared because "the people" cannot function with a meeting of individuals to discuss policy. The right is declared to ensure "the people" may form.

why don't you tell us what words delegated the power to the federal government to regulate or ban firearms?

 

[Thoreau72]

My mistake. They appear in the so-called operative clause.




Nonsense. The gun cult want to interpret "people" as the plural of person. It isn't.




That's gibberish.

OK, I'll play. If 'people' is not the plural of 'person', then what is?

 

[Joe Steel]

OK, I'll play. If 'people' is not the plural of 'person', then what is?

"People" is to be understood as the citizens, collectively, as sovereign.