- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 385
- Location
- Nun-ya-dang Bidness
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Not all episodes where people vote on something or respond to a poll is an "appeal to popularity."
But I can see how a loser would think it is or claim that it is.
In this case, it would. I can see how a loser would want to have a vote on something that he's lost on, though.
Most people would likely agree with me that you are trying to use the wording of the 2nd. Amendment to deny aspects of the right,... simply because those aspects were not specifically written in the amendment.
Not all episodes where people vote on something or respond to a poll is an "appeal to popularity."
But I can see how a loser would think it is or claim that it is.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Hard to believe as it may be, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is how we determine what the second amendment means. When you start to read things into the Constitution that aren't actually there, it's called interpretivism. Kinda like that pesky right to privacy they established in Roe v. Wade, which based on the logic you employ above, I can only assume that you support...
Here is the text of the 9th and 10th Amendments,....
Do explain how you reconcile the sentiments they express with what you just said;
We are supposed to 'interpret' the Constitution.
fortunately, CC doesn't abuse power like that
Many boards I have been on-when you crush a mod, they ban you. A board I once was a mod on was owned by a cowardly schmuck and he got cyber-castrated by a lady poster and he then banned her. I unsubscribed immediately. Fortunately, I haven't seen that sort of abuse here
Gladly: The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms, as discussed earlier this is a legal term of art that refers exclusively to military service, and furthermore this is tied explicitly to the militia use, it does not protect any other use. When it was incorporated against the States, on an originalist reading this carried over to protect only the right to keep and bear arms for militia use as against the states. There is no original intent for a second amendment right to absolute possession and use of guns, only for the militia use. Anything more expansive than this is interpretivism. The 9th and 10th amendments don't support your positions, quite the contrary. The Second Amendment doesn't deny the right to use guns for self-defense, hunting, etc, it just doesn't recognize it. On an originalist reading, the right to regulate these aspects of gun ownership is left to the states, and with the expansion of the commerce clause the federal government as well.
The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms, as discussed earlier this is a legal term of art that refers exclusively to military service, and furthermore this is tied explicitly to the militia use, it does not protect any other use.
Exactly! So I can assume you support a Constitutional right to privacy as decided in Roe v. Wade? After all, by this statement you just committed yourself to this position.
/ignore
When someone takes a position that is clearly lacking in substance, and holds to it despite plentiful evidence to the contrary, sensible people eventually get tired of beating their head against a brick wall. :mrgreen:
Doesn't make you right.
Yes, but you forget. CC is da judge here and his gavel has landed.:smash:
So, THUS FAR, I haven't seen anything that demonstrates an error in my position. The larger question, though is this. I agree fully in the right ti posses an carry weapons should no be infringed. I also state that the government has the right to regulate usage. In general, this is the position held by this who would be classified as "pro-gun". Why, then, are you all having a problem with my argument?
So, THUS FAR, I haven't seen anything that demonstrates an error in my position.
Dueling was a tradition in this country even before the constitution was written. This sort of leads me to believe that the framers believed in the right to bear arms.
[...]
We no longer have the right to duel. Should we have had a constitutional amendment to prevent dueling?
Turtle, the Black Knight in this situation is you. Despite never advancing a single argument based on fact, nor being able to defeat a single fact-based argument of CC's, you continue to claim victory. It amazes me how intelligent people can be in such deep denial in the face of facts and argument that undermine their worldview, but I suppose it shouldn't. I mean, I understand where you're coming from, you can't give up absolute gun rights and you can't give up orginalism, so in the face of incontrovertible facts that the two are incompatible, I guess it's either denial or head asplode.
How about the fact that the original definition of "to bear" as a verb includes the fundamental usuage of whatever is being borne? It doesn't mean just "to hold", otherwise it would be "To keep and hold...". To bear as the verb it is being used as includes the functional use of whatever tool, in this case arms, is being borne.
This has been discussed already, actually I think you're the one who quoted the article that addressed this. "Keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art, like "cease and desist," that referred only to the use of arms for military service and did not encompass the common meaning of the words "keep" or "bear" as used separately.
Actually, dueling was never considered a right and has been a crime at common law since long before the American Revolution. It was certainly popular around the revolutionary era, of course, but there were numerous legal attempts to suppress it, and as far as I can tell it was never authorized under the law. Check out this article for a really fascinating history of dueling: SSRN-The End of the Affair? Anti-Dueling Laws and Social Norms in Antebellum America by Harwell Wells
Speaking of which.... still waiting for those quotes that support your position.Despite never advancing a single argument based on fact....
You have have, thus far, shown nothing to support this claim.Gladly: The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms, as discussed earlier this is a legal term of art that refers exclusively to military service and furthermore this is tied explicitly to the militia use, it does not protect any other use
.There is no original intent for a second amendment right to absolute possession and use of guns, only for the militia use
fortunately, CC doesn't abuse power like that
Many boards I have been on-when you crush a mod, they ban you. A board I once was a mod on was owned by a cowardly schmuck and he got cyber-castrated by a lady poster and he then banned her. I unsubscribed immediately. Fortunately, I haven't seen that sort of abuse here
What are you, Three?
You were wrong to dismiss the relevance and the significance of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Most people would likely agree with me that you are trying to use the wording of the 2nd. Amendment to deny aspects of the right (use),... simply because those aspects were not specifically written in the amendment (keep and bear).
Show some integrity and admit someone has made a point worthy of this ****ing forum once in a while or step the **** down as a wannabe god-damned admin.
Consider yourself lucky.
Moderator's Warning: |
We are supposed to 'interpret' the Constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?