Constitutional limits?

[Rich2018]

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments, appealing to authority is a fallacy in this case. And there are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment and it is not a Constitution unto itself as it would need to be to even imply what right wingers suggest.

You are appealing to ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

You are appealing to ignorance.

In what way?

 

[Rich2018]

In what way?

The defense clause is general and the welfare clause is common.

 

[aociswundumho]

It is crystal clear actually

Citizens have a right to bear arms, in order so they might serve in the militia

If that was not the case, why does the 2nd amendment even mention the militia or the security of a free state ?

Many state constitutions contain similar language. Vermont:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

The Vermont Statutes Online

Pennsylvania:

§ 21. Right to bear arms.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania - PA General Assembly

It is absurd to claim that the right to keep and bear arms has anything to do with being in a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

The defense clause is general and the welfare clause is common.

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies as well. Please provide a valid rebuttal to this argument:

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments, appealing to authority is a fallacy in this case. And there are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment and it is not a Constitution unto itself as it would need to be to even imply what right wingers suggest.

 

[Rich2018]

It is absurd to claim that the right to keep and bear arms has anything to do with being in a militia.

Then why does the 2nd amendment mention the militia ?

Why not just say the people have a right to keep and bear arms period ?

 

[Rich2018]

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies as well. Please provide a valid rebuttal to this argument:

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments, appealing to authority is a fallacy in this case. And there are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment and it is not a Constitution unto itself as it would need to be to even imply what right wingers suggest.

You appeal to ignorance.

 

[rahl]

How is this gibberish, can you explain it to me?

Gibberish | Definition of Gibberish at Dictionary.com

And, you miss the point. The Means must be sacrificed to the End, not the reverse.

this is gibberish

 

[rahl]

Your posts do not support that so far




Yes, according to the text, and as I keep telling you, that SC ruling was a split ruling - meaning a different SC composition could return an opposite ruling
So citing a split SC ruling is hardly proof of anything now is it ?




Which changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment in absolutely no way

If the reverse interpretation of the 2nd amendment was made, to what the SC actually did rule, the comma would still be there




So is yours




For now. But even if the SC was to rule in favor of the 2nd amendment's original intent and state that guns are allowed, purely the staff a militia, a subsequent SC ruling could change it back again






The was the (split) ruling

Accordingly, to get any significant gun control, we must repeal the 2nd amendment.

I'm sorry, I know it sucks for you that your opinion means exactly nothing regarding constitutional law. But this matter has been settled. You lost. the crystal clear unambiguous language of the second amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with militia service.

 

[rahl]

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments, appealing to authority is a fallacy in this case.

neither amendment have any relevance to anything being discussed. We've already established you have no ****ing clue how logical fallacies work, or how to apply them correctly.

And there are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment and it is not a Constitution unto itself as it would need to be to even imply what right wingers suggest.

this is objectively and demonstrably false.

 

[aociswundumho]

Then why does the 2nd amendment mention the militia ?

Why not just say the people have a right to keep and bear arms period ?

Would it really matter to people like you? Consider the first amendment, which is simple and absolute:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

But don't you believe Congress may pass laws abridging certain speech?

For example, do you support parts of the fair housing act which prohibit discriminatory housing advertisements and prohibits what real estate agents may talk about with their clients?

If yes, then even if the 2A didn't mention the militia, you still would reject it.

 

[Vadinho]

I know.


not according to the actual wording of the amendment, or the supreme court.

basic English composition and grammar. learn what a comma means. Regardless, your opinion on the matter is meaningless. This is settled constitutional law. The individual has a right to keep and bear arms, having nothing to do with service in any militia.

The only reason it is legal is because of a 5-4 decision. Change one jurist and it would be a different matter. Scalia worked himself into pretzels to make it appear as if the amendment was not about militias. Have you read Stephens dissent?
"militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Or Bryers? "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."[54]

So the only thing Heller proved was that if you pack the court with the right type of jurists, you get the decisions you want. While Heller does stand, I can see it being overturned at some point in the future. It might take a horrible event to do so considering the amount of death the gun nuts already accept as the price to pay for arming themselves to the teeth. Say a future event has a crazy gunman mowing down NASCAR fans at Talladega. Or maybe a bunch of black men annihilating hundreds of Liberty Students at mass. Nah, that won't budge them a bit either, they will just want more guns.

 

[danielpalos]

You appeal to ignorance.

lol. I already won the argument. You lost with your first fallacy. I am practicing just for fun.

 

[danielpalos]

Then why does the 2nd amendment mention the militia ?

Why not just say the people have a right to keep and bear arms period ?

Because that was not the Intent and Purpose of that amendment.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number Forty

 

[rahl]

The only reason it is legal is because of a 5-4 decision. Change one jurist and it would be a different matter. Scalia worked himself into pretzels to make it appear as if the amendment was not about militias. Have you read Stephens dissent?
"militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Or Bryers? "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."[54]

So the only thing Heller proved was that if you pack the court with the right type of jurists, you get the decisions you want. While Heller does stand, I can see it being overturned at some point in the future. It might take a horrible event to do so considering the amount of death the gun nuts already accept as the price to pay for arming themselves to the teeth. Say a future event has a crazy gunman mowing down NASCAR fans at Talladega. Or maybe a bunch of black men annihilating hundreds of Liberty Students at mass. Nah, that won't budge them a bit either, they will just want more guns.

you can whine all you want and think your opinion means more than a supreme court ruling, but nobody cares. Your opinion is meaningless. This is settled constitutional law, and you will need an amendment to change that. Meanwhile, individuals will continue to enjoy their right to keep and bear arms, completely unconnected to service in any militia, as spelled out in the crystal clear unambiguous language of the second amendment and confirmed by the supreme court of the US.

 

[danielpalos]

You appeal to ignorance.

Yet, you cannot explain it. Why should I take you seriously in this debate?

 

[danielpalos]

Gibberish | Definition of Gibberish at Dictionary.com


this is gibberish

Go ahead and tell me this is gibberish so I no longer need to confide in your sincerity in this debate:

The Means must be sacrificed to the End, not the reverse.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm sorry, I know it sucks for you that your opinion means exactly nothing regarding constitutional law. But this matter has been settled. You lost. the crystal clear unambiguous language of the second amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with militia service.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Source: New York State Constitution

 

[danielpalos]

neither amendment have any relevance to anything being discussed. We've already established you have no ****ing clue how logical fallacies work, or how to apply them correctly.

this is objectively and demonstrably false.

Maybe in right wing fantasy. In the real world, our Constitution is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

Go ahead and give me Standing, right wingers. I already know y'all have nothing fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Would it really matter to people like you? Consider the first amendment, which is simple and absolute:



But don't you believe Congress may pass laws abridging certain speech?

For example, do you support parts of the fair housing act which prohibit discriminatory housing advertisements and prohibits what real estate agents may talk about with their clients?

If yes, then even if the 2A didn't mention the militia, you still would reject it.

Yes, it matters because our Constitution is Express not Implied in any way. Simply implying any Thing is a fallacy and error at law, when our Constitution is clear, unambiguous and unvague.

 

[danielpalos]

The only reason it is legal is because of a 5-4 decision. Change one jurist and it would be a different matter. Scalia worked himself into pretzels to make it appear as if the amendment was not about militias. Have you read Stephens dissent?
"militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Or Bryers? "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."[54]

So the only thing Heller proved was that if you pack the court with the right type of jurists, you get the decisions you want. While Heller does stand, I can see it being overturned at some point in the future. It might take a horrible event to do so considering the amount of death the gun nuts already accept as the price to pay for arming themselves to the teeth. Say a future event has a crazy gunman mowing down NASCAR fans at Talladega. Or maybe a bunch of black men annihilating hundreds of Liberty Students at mass. Nah, that won't budge them a bit either, they will just want more guns.

Judicial activism from the right wing?

 

[rahl]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Source: New York State Constitution

no relevance to anything being discussed.

 

[danielpalos]

you can whine all you want and think your opinion means more than a supreme court ruling, but nobody cares. Your opinion is meaningless. This is settled constitutional law, and you will need an amendment to change that. Meanwhile, individuals will continue to enjoy their right to keep and bear arms, completely unconnected to service in any militia, as spelled out in the crystal clear unambiguous language of the second amendment and confirmed by the supreme court of the US.

It cannot be settled since we have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments; all it requires is standing to reverse that false witness bearing to our federal Constitution with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

 

[rahl]

Maybe in right wing fantasy. In the real world, our Constitution is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

I'm not right wing. The facts remain, the second amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms, completely unconnected with any service in a militia.

Go ahead and give me Standing, right wingers. I already know y'all have nothing fallacy.

your argument remains refuted. DC v Heller.

 

[rahl]

It cannot be settled since we have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments;

neither amendment has any relevance to the second.

all it requires is standing to reverse that false witness bearing to our federal Constitution with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

nobody has standing to challenge DC v Heller. Every lower court is bound by it's precedent. An amendment is required in order to overturn it.