No, I can see where you would have that opinion because in the past I probably have taken those sorts of stances, but now, I can see that both sides of the argument are committing activism when they politically rule. The bottom line is that they need to get back to the Constitution and stop with this.
j-mac
This coming from a person who used examples of the commerce clause from the three worst rated SCOTUS eras of all time? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a FAIL!it was a great example of right-wing judicial activism.
Where was the gun you bought in Ohio manufactured? Ohio? No? How did it get to Ohio? Interstate commerce? Thought so.
At any rate, whether you agree with it or not, commerce clause analysis is what it is. Likewise, the SC recently held that the 2d Amendment provides for a private right of ownership -- not just for the purpose of state militias. I don't particularly agree with that interpretation, but I do recognize that the Supreme Court establishes the law of the land and it's what we have to live with, unless or until they reverse themselves. Oddly enough, I don't see you complaining about THIS conservative SC decision, which overtuned more than a century of precedent. Hypocrite much?
if you couldn't keep and bear arms until after you joined the militia that had been mustered and appointed officers it would be pretty worthless. the idea of a militia is sort of like a volunteer fire department. can you imagine if a volunteer firefighter would have to go to the firehouse when the alarm sounded, get training in how to fight fires and issued equipment there before going to the fire?
your statist pyschobabble is idiotic. there was no century of supreme court precedent and Miller can be read rationally as allowing us to own machine rifles. Some appellate courts used an erroneous interpretation of teh 1870s cruikshank decision which held (correctly) that the second does not CREATE a RKBA (It merely RECOGNIZES ONE) and those racist judges (gun control was enacted to keep freed blacks or "papists" disarmed) claimed that since the second did not create a RKBA none existed
Right, to further the consevative irony and hypocrisy, our Founding Fathers in fact approved a MANDATE that required able-bodied men to purchase their own weapons and sundry equipment. So much for the argument that Obama was the first to do so.
If we were to revisit the issue, look at intent, reassess the need for that today, I doubt the amendment would hold today. I'm not advocating getting rid of guns, but it is time to end this debate by rewriting it to say what we really do today.
This coming from a person who used examples of the commerce clause from the three worst rated SCOTUS eras of all time?...
Right, to further the consevative irony and hypocrisy, our Founding Fathers in fact approved a MANDATE that required able-bodied men to purchase their own weapons and sundry equipment. So much for the argument that Obama was the first to do so.
I didn't realize that people were members of an insurance pool
your statist pyschobabble is idiotic. there was no century of supreme court precedent and Miller can be read rationally as allowing us to own machine rifles. Some appellate courts used an erroneous interpretation of teh 1870s cruikshank decision which held (correctly) that the second does not CREATE a RKBA (It merely RECOGNIZES ONE) and those racist judges (gun control was enacted to keep freed blacks or "papists" disarmed) claimed that since the second did not create a RKBA none existed
Says about 75% of constitutional scholars, you know, guys who study that kind of thing. Face it, you fail......again.says who?
you?
I didn't realize that people were members of an insurance pool
Statist psychobable? That's rather self parodying, isn't it? :lol:
Well, it's actually not my assertion; it came from Justice John Paul Stevens.
See, this is the problem, what we should be talking about if one disagrees with the amendment, is to either repeal it, or create another amendment superceeding it. Short of that it is activism from a body of unelected judges that have no business setting law.
j-mac
Do you realize what an oxymoron is?
Says about 75% of constitutional scholars, you know, guys who study that kind of thing. Face it, you fail......again.
Funny thing is, I have little vested interest in proving anything here so in this "fight" I've basically handcuffed my strong hand to a door to make it fair. The anti-second side isn't even bringing out a 25% effort from ours because this is so dishonest and absurd. Their best arguments are appeal to court(one they agree with and are considered horrible by everyone else) and appeal to emotion(which is just too easy).You really aren't demonstrating any intelligence in your posts sufficient to engage in such silly snarkiness towards me.
what motivates the anti gunners?...
Funny how it doesn't matter what you believe it's the truth.funny..how I simply don't believe you.
stevens-one of the most intellectually deficient justices in years-his dissent in Heller was a prime example of a man whose brain was no longer up to snuff. He whined that the supremes overturned 100 years of crappy appellate precedent that was based on a clearly ERRONEOUS interpretation of a 1870s USSC case that I discussed.
Says about 75% of constitutional scholars, you know, guys who study that kind of thing. Face it, you fail......again.
I disagree-its about 99%. Indeed the only ones who disagree are paid hacks in second rate law reviews like Brady Bunch butt boy lawyer Dennis Henigan whose academic credentials are hardly such as to call him a legal scholar
Stevens is a great man and was was a very good justice. While Heller didn't explicitly overrule prior cases, it's clear that the SC had several opportunities to find a private right to bear arms and bent over backwards to avoid doing so.
I disagree-its about 99%. Indeed the only ones who disagree are paid hacks in second rate law reviews like Brady Bunch butt boy lawyer Dennis Henigan whose academic credentials are hardly such as to call him a legal scholar
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?