How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Let's say one had a select-fire carbine. A select-fire carbine is an arm, therefore Americans have a right to keep and bear it. Yet the federal government violates this right by forbidding possession of that arm.

but if you can own a rusty 22 single shot rifle you can ENJOY your Second amendment rights because the statist attitude is that the bill of rights are NOT a restriction on what the government can do but rather a list of what you are allowed to ENJOY

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

but if you can own a rusty 22 single shot rifle you can ENJOY your Second amendment rights because the statist attitude is that the bill of rights are NOT a restriction on what the government can do but rather a list of what you are allowed to ENJOY

Yes, that is haymarket's position, and it is incorrect. The American people have a right to keep and bear arms, of which a select-fire carbine is an example.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I named several of the most prominent legal scholars. You cannot even come back with ONE that supports your "enjoyment" theory of constitutional rights. So lets see if you can come up with ONE

Nor do I need to as I never made the claim you did. Here it is from you

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page.

So lets see it. Present the official list of the leading constitutional scholars and then we can take one more than half and that is the majority in question. Then you can research each scholar on that list and present both your views and then theirs to see if they agree with you.

Those are the steps you need to take to validate your boast.

Of course, you WILL NOT DO THIS if your previous posting history is any guide to the present. But feel free to prove me wrong by going through the steps and presenting the verifiable evidence.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Yes, that is haymarket's position, and it is incorrect. The American people have a right to keep and bear arms, of which a select-fire carbine is an example.

and the circular argument that since government has infringed on that right and lazy or dishonest judges have refused to slap the law down, means the constitution was not violated is statist crap.

Its funny watching the dancing evasion on this argument. the changing standards of proof and the demand we adopt nonsensical or silly definitions from the "civilian law enforcement officers are not civilians" or to the "enjoyment theory of constitutional rights, is just pathetic

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

and the circular argument that since government has infringed on that right and lazy or dishonest judges have refused to slap the law down, means the constitution was not violated is statist crap.

Its funny watching the dancing evasion on this argument. the changing standards of proof and the demand we adopt nonsensical or silly definitions from the "civilian law enforcement officers are not civilians" or to the "enjoyment theory of constitutional rights, is just pathetic

When you are done patting each other on the back and singing out of the same hymnal, I look forward to you providing the verifiable evidence for this claim you made here

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page.

Present the official list of the leading constitutional scholars and then we can take one more than half and that is the majority in question. Then you can research each scholar on that list and present both your views and then theirs to see if they agree with you.

Those are the steps you need to take to validate your boast. Feel free to enlist the help of Federalist or anyone else you wish to assist you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Nor do I need to as I never made the claim you did. Here it is from you



So lets see it. Present the official list of the leading constitutional scholars and then we can take one more than half and that is the majority in question. Then you can research each scholar on that list and present both your views and then theirs to see if they agree with you.

Those are the steps you need to take to validate your boast.

Of course, you WILL NOT DO THIS if your previous posting history is any guide to the present. But feel free to prove me wrong by going through the steps and presenting the verifiable evidence.

I am not going to waste my time listing people you really cannot dispute. I made an assertion that everyone who follows legal scholarship understands is accurate and I gave examples. NO LEADING (i.e. a professor at a top 25 law school) supports your "enjoyment theory" of constitutional rights

Not Amar
Not Tribe
Not Calabresi
Not Van Alstyne
Not Volokh
Not Simson (most notably Cornell, currently dean a Mercer Law School)
Not Tribe (who after years of being a denier admitted the individual rights position was correct in the 2A
Not Dorf
Not Fried
Not Kates

here is who you might have to support you

Carl Bogus (third rate law school)
Andrew Herz (visiting assistant professor at Touro law school)

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I am not going to waste my time listing people you really cannot dispute.

Thank you for publicly admitting that you surrender and cannot and will not even attempt to prove your claim made in your 2465.

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page.

I predicted you would not based on your posting history and you - again - did not disappoint.

from my 2478

Of course, you WILL NOT DO THIS if your previous posting history is any guide to the present.

Thanks for the Christmas present Turtle. :2wave:

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Thank you for publicly admitting that you surrender and cannot and will not even attempt to prove your claim made in your 2465.





I predicted you would not based on your posting history and you - again - did not disappoint.

from my 2478



Thanks for the Christmas present Turtle. :2wave:

an interesting white flag. I predict you will continue to evade and try to win debates from radically incompetent positions based on evasion and demanding the rest of us adhere to your fringe and silly definitions (such as claims that Civilian law enforcement officers =as defined by federal statute-are not civilians or the "enjoy" angle of constitutional rights which is a limitation on government-not a positive grant of things we already have)

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

an interesting white flag. I predict you will continue to evade and try to win debates from radically incompetent positions based on evasion and demanding the rest of us adhere to your fringe and silly definitions (such as claims that Civilian law enforcement officers =as defined by federal statute-are not civilians or the "enjoy" angle of constitutional rights which is a limitation on government-not a positive grant of things we already have)

The basic fact he can't get around is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and the federal government is prohibited from violating that right.

So, for example, if a person has an arms such as a select-fire carbine, he has a right to keep and bear that arm, and the federal government may not violate his right to do so.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What laws intended to improve life for Americans would not be in the general welfare? It is such a wide term that it could cover nearly all manner of legislation intended to have a positive impact on citizens.



If that is the conclusion you make from reading Paragraph 16, then you truly are the living breathing textbook example of the adage THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THEY WHO WILL NOT SEE. The specific language has to do with the arms the militia has and the governments ability to organize them and discipline them. And that also covers a huge amount of ground.



is not part of the US Constitution and was never ratified as such. It is irrelevant and has no more legal force of law than used Charmin.

the general welfare is the delegated powers of congress, is in not a free license to do anything the government wants even the founders state this.

it says to provide arms, it states nothing about what kind, type, noting about there regulation.

the preamble states that the clauses of the bill of rights are restrictive........and your ratification non-sense is ridiculous ,sines the preamble in on the the bill of rights in Washington d.c.


were you post falls flat IS:........OF YOUR DOUBLE DIPPING....becuase you try to use 2 whys you justify your beliefs.

first............ you say is its general.welfare

second...........then you say there is a actual clause for it.

last you act as though the preamble does not exist on the document at all....and it does, and it states the bill of rights are all declaratory and restrictive clauses.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The basic fact he can't get around is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and the federal government is prohibited from violating that right.

So, for example, if a person has an arms such as a select-fire carbine, he has a right to keep and bear that arm, and the federal government may not violate his right to do so.

very few people who spend much time debating or haranguing second amendment issues are ignorant of that fact. Indeed, I suspect if you injected scopolamine into most leading gun banners and asked them if the second amendment-READ AS INTENDED-prohibits gun restrictions such as magazine limits, automatic weapon bans etc, they would all say YES. But they know that dishonest judges, political opportunists and power hungry assholes like Biden and FDR have allowed such nonsense to take place. I would bet that 99.5% of those who think as Haymarket and Herz and Bogus do, started off with an anti gun attitude and then INTERPRETED the second amendment so as to allow their restrictionist agenda. Not the other way around

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

an interesting white flag.

raised by you.

You made a claim and you could not back it up.

You lose by your own hand.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

the general welfare is the delegated powers of congress, is in not a free license to do anything the government wants even the founders state this.

it says to provide arms, it states nothing about what kind, type, noting about there regulation.

the preamble states that the clauses of the bill of rights are restrictive........and your ratification non-sense is ridiculous ,sines the preamble in on the the bill of rights in Washington d.c.

We have been through this before Herr Barkmann. Your precious preamble to the bill of rights was never ratified and is not part of the US Constitution. That is an undeniable fact.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

raised by you.

You made a claim and you could not back it up.

You lose by your own hand.

no one else has seen it that way.

I said your silly "enjoyment" theory of the second amendment is a fringe and pathetic attempt to denigrate our rights and to support authoritarian government nonsense. I noted no leading legal scholar as adopted or supported such a moronic interpretation of what constitutes a violation of our RKBA. You have yet to dispute my assertion but rather, as usual, you pretend that I didn't prove my assertion because I didn't list every possible legal scholar

I don't need to

I asserted that no leading second amendment scholar supports your silly views. If you can find one that does, I am sure you would have listed them. I referenced two minor league professors who are extreme gun haters. One went to a third rate law school and teaches at an even lower ranked one ANother went to a major league law school (Cornell) but was an assistant professor at a third rate one and his views have been pretty much eviscerated by the recent USSC rulings

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

no one else has seen it that way.

Again with your love of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum.

I asserted that no leading second amendment scholar supports your silly views.

Why are you lying? Here was YOUR CLAIM OF FACT from your 2465

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page.

And when challenged to man up and prove it - you backed away and never presented anything to support your claim.

I asserted that no leading second amendment scholar supports your silly views.

First, you confuse me with somebody who gives a damn about so called scholars. Second, I made no claim - you did and then refused to back it up with verifiable fact - which is your long history in these exchanges and I accurately predicted you would be impotent to present the verifiable evidence and you proved me right.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

We have been through this before Herr Barkmann. Your precious preamble to the bill of rights was never ratified and is not part of the US Constitution. That is an undeniable fact.

the preamble states what kind of clauses the bill of rights are.

James Madison 1800- But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:

"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.


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..............

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

the preamble states what kind of clauses the bill of rights are."

It is NOT part of the Constitution and has no more legal force and authority that used Charmin.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Again with your love of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum.



Why are you lying? Here was YOUR CLAIM OF FACT from your 2465



And when challenged to man up and prove it - you backed away and never presented anything to support your claim.



First, you confuse me with somebody who gives a damn about so called scholars. Second, I made no claim - you did and then refused to back it up with verifiable fact - which is your long history in these exchanges and I accurately predicted you would be impotent to present the verifiable evidence and you proved me right.

Your silly HS debate terms are worthless here. The fact is-as someone else noted to you-when everyone you deal with has the same issues with your quibbling nuanced arguments, it should be a clue that trying so hard to be clever and "untouchable" by using fringe definitions and employing the "that depends what IS IS" arguments only suggests to the rest of us you are more worried about not being pinned down than actually defending a position. I mentioned leading constitutional scholars and you couldn't find one who would support your idiotic fringe "enjoyment" bit of constitutional fictional silliness.

Of course you don't care about scholars. Most of them find the crap that the Dems have spewed to be specious.

the impotent comment is hilarious BTW.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Your silly HS debate terms are worthless here.

Like the "silly HS debate term" of Argumentum ad Populum? A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy and you happen to be in love with using the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum. Your problems is not only the use of it to try to pretend to give some weight to your personal pontifications, but you cannot even use it properly as you are powerless to back up your claims of expert agreement with any verifiable evidence of the same.

Or - how about that other "sill HS debate term" - MOST? Its more than half. That is universally understood. You claimed that MOST scholars agreed with you but then were incapable of actually presenting that data.

Or how about the "silly HS debate term" IMPOTENT? It means powerless or inability or incapable of - all words which describe your making a statement about most scholars agreeing with you and then makign no effort at all to provide any evidence of the kind.

Yeah Turtle - I can see where those "silly HS debate " terms must drive you crazy in complete frustration. :doh:roll::lamo

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What laws intended to improve life for Americans would not be in the general welfare? It is such a wide term that it could cover nearly all manner of legislation intended to have a positive impact on citizens.

Except that the constitution was emended to specifically prohibit the federal government from denying the people's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Except that the constitution was emended to specifically prohibit the federal government from denying the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Your problem is with the exact language of the Constitution which does not say that people can have any firearm of their choice and that choice is only dependent on available technology and economic opportunity. What the coulda shoulda woulda and wanted to do or intended to do is irrelevant next to the actual language.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Like the "silly HS debate term" of Argumentum ad Populum? A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy and you happen to be in love with using the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum. Your problems is not only the use of it to try to pretend to give some weight to your personal pontifications, but you cannot even use it properly as you are powerless to back up your claims of expert agreement with any verifiable evidence of the same.

Or - how about that other "sill HS debate term" - MOST? Its more than half. That is universally understood. You claimed that MOST scholars agreed with you but then were incapable of actually presenting that data.

Or how about the "silly HS debate term" IMPOTENT? It means powerless or inability or incapable of - all words which describe your making a statement about most scholars agreeing with you and then makign no effort at all to provide any evidence of the kind.

Yeah Turtle - I can see where those "silly HS debate " terms must drive you crazy in complete frustration. :doh:roll::lamo

yawn, the fact is when most of the posters find a position to be evasive what does that say?

I presented evidence, you don't like it and you ignore it

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Your problem is with the exact language of the Constitution which does not say that people can have any firearm of their choice and that choice is only dependent on available technology and economic opportunity. What the coulda shoulda woulda and wanted to do or intended to do is irrelevant next to the actual language.

that is a dishonest argument

YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LANGUAGE YET NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION even remotely hints that the federal government can regulate firearms

once again-using different standards for the freedom advocates than you use for the statist position

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Your problem is with the exact language of the Constitution which does not say that people can have any firearm of their choice and that choice is only dependent on available technology and economic opportunity. What the coulda shoulda woulda and wanted to do or intended to do is irrelevant next to the actual language.

Sorry, but no matter how much you cry about it, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" not "the right of the people to keep and bear some kinds of arms".

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

yawn, the fact is when most of the posters find a position to be evasive what does that say?

You have not even proven that claim to be true. Are you referring to all posters on this site? Are you only limiting your selected universe to the people who post in gun threads knowing full well that your tactics on this board are intended to drive anybody who disagrees with you away and so intentionally skews the participants on these threads to sycophants and toadies of the gun lobby?

either way its bunk and more of your favorite fallacy - Argumentum ad Populum.

I presented evidence, you don't like it and you ignore it.

You are lying about that. Your claim of fact in 2465 was that most constitutional scholars gree with you.

sadly for you, most leading constitutional scholars and I are on the same page.

You presented no such evidence to support your claim of fact. Not only that, but you even utterly were unable to present just what the universe of these scholars consisted of, how many there were, what a majority was, what your views are, what there views are, a comparison between the two, and finally a calculation of the math to show the MOST you referred to.

You presented none of that so why would you lie about doing so? But feel free to prove me wrong by right now linking to the post where you did the things in the above paragraph. Lets see it.