• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Quiz Question on Second Amendment:

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is very good. It also shows the veneration for SCOTUS is wholly misplaced: they as a group failed this test for over 70 years. Hopefully, we're at the start of an era when the damage will be undone. Striking down the NFA framework, Brady bill, and FFL stranglehold on sales would be a good start. At the very least, some of the more idiotic provisions and stamp tax requirements (SBR, SBS, suppressors) will go away.
I don't agree with everything Justice Scalia says, but I have the greatest respect for his intellect. When he was assigned that landmark decision in Heller, I know damned well he fully realized just how important and controversial the Second Amendment was, and he pulled out all the stops in his opinion for the majority. It is one of the finest pieces of legal analysis I know of--organized, detailed, comprehensive. He made a very powerful case, and he did it in straightforward, precise language. It is not easy reading, but I hope everyone who values this fundamental right will spend a little time to study what he said. It's fun to watch a master at work. His arguments, one after the other, on every part of the amendment, supported by every conceivable kind of evidence, are very, very hard to find holes in. About as easy to do that as to hit Clayton Kershaw's "A" curveball. Here is Heller:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

The typical collectivist dope's veneration of the Supreme Court, which is usually based on some piece of garbage like Obergefell or Roe, really IS wholly misplaced. All the same, some members of the Court deserve our respect. We are very lucky to have at least three bright stars there--Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, and the brightest of all, I think, Justice Thomas. He is the one who so often uses a case as the opportunity to make some creative, sensible suggestion about how the Court should view this or that in the future. His dissenting opinion in Obergefell takes a milder tone than the other three, but in a way it bites even harder. Read its careful, scholarly analysis of what due process has meant in English and American law since Magna Charta 800 years ago, and you will see, right away, how the decision in Obergefell is a complete fabrication by Justice Kennedy.

The sad thing about Kennedy is how damned good he has been, when he has wanted to be. He has written some very difficult, complex decisions and gotten everything right. But when it comes to abortion or gay rights, he forgets all his standards and sounds like he's writing an article for the urban paper they give away at the bong shop.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian


What do you think?
It is not analogous. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art that specifically referred to military service. In its original meaning it does not, as many historically ignorant people think, mean the same thing as simply "hold and own guns."

"The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment."

So, you fail this quiz.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
that second point utterly destroys the mendacious moon bat mutterings that the second amendment is only about militia service or involves the "right" (LOL) of the federal government to have a militia. of course most of the mutterings come from people who aren't really all that learned on constitutional theory or 18th century history
"Mendacious moon bat mutterings?" Love it! One of the militia maunderers, well known to both of us, a few days ago was trying to tell me why a 13-year-old boy's school should be able to suspend him for wearing a T-shirt that celebrated our war dead. The boy wore it because he looks up to his big brother, who served in Afghanistan, and wanted to express his patriotism. This poster--I'll call him "Hayseed"-- had arguments for trampling on students' freedom of expression that were, if it's possible, even more far-fetched than his arguments about the militia clause and the supposed distinction between "infringed" and "infringement." The same people who despise the Second Amendment often despise the First, too. Not to mention the Tenth.

You're right about the right to keep and bear predating the Constitution--powerful stuff. That puts it in elite company, with things like the right to habeas, the right of a man and woman to marry, all the First Amendment rights, and the Fourth Amendment rights. I liked the way Scalia noted that Cruikshank had said that, emphasizing that the right was not dependent on the Constitution for its existence. Stevens was smart enough, but when he crossed swords with Scalia, it was like watching Sergeant Garcia trying to fence with Zorro in the old Disney TV show.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is not analogous. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art that specifically referred to military service. In its original meaning it does not, as many historically ignorant people think, mean the same thing as simply "hold and own guns."

"The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment."

So, you fail this quiz.
Horse manure. Who are you quoting--the historically ignorant wino on the corner, maybe? You fail to show the least understanding of D.C. v. Heller, the landmark 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court for the first time fully construed the Second Amendment. I don't care a pinch of owl dung about any "original meaning" some anonymous person may have ascribed to the phrase "keep and bear arms." The only meaning that counts in American law is the one in the Second Amendment, and Justice Scalia's construction of that phrase in Heller sure as hell does not jibe with yours. See D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at Part II A.1.b.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Horse manure. Who are you quoting--the historically ignorant wino on the corner, maybe? You fail to show the least understanding of D.C. v. Heller, the landmark 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court for the first time fully construed the Second Amendment. I don't care a pinch of owl dung about any "original meaning" some anonymous person may have ascribed to the phrase "keep and bear arms." The only meaning that counts in American law is the one in the Second Amendment, and Justice Scalia's construction of that phrase in Heller sure as hell does not jibe with yours. See D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at Part II A.1.b.
Feel free to look up the quote on your own. Just one of many historical examples demonstrating the original meaning of the phrase "keep and bear arms."

It is very common to misunderstand this now obsolete legal term of art, as you do. Don't feel bad, it requires some real study of history to get to the point where you can understand it. I suggest taking the time to study up.
 
Last edited:

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Feel free to look up the quote on your own. Just one of many historical examples demonstrating the original meaning of the phrase "keep and bear arms."

It is very common to misunderstand this now obsolete legal term of art, as you do. Don't feel bad, it requires some real study of history to get to the point where you can understand it. I suggest taking the time to study up.
Thank you, but it's not worth the effort. I'll feel free to continue to assume your quote came from some wino on the street corner. I'm not in the mood for studying. It always gave me a headache in law school, plus it cut into my partying time. Justice Scalia and a majority of the Supreme Court flatly disagree with you. You can argue against their opinion in Heller, if you want, or you can continue to embarrass yourself in front of everyone reading this thread with your uninformed prattle.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thank you, but it's not worth the effort. I'll feel free to continue to assume your quote came from some wino on the street corner. I'm not in the mood for studying. It always gave me a headache in law school, plus it cut into my partying time. Justice Scalia and a majority of the Supreme Court flatly disagree with you. You can argue against their opinion in Heller, if you want, or you can continue to embarrass yourself in front of everyone reading this thread with your uninformed prattle.
He thinks quoting a 100+ year old State-level ruling will help him sound more intelligent as long as he hides the citation so that you don't read the rest of that ruling and utterly destroy him with his own source.

Funny thing is, he's probably right.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He thinks quoting a 100+ year old State-level ruling will help him sound more intelligent as long as he hides the citation so that you don't read the rest of that ruling and utterly destroy him with his own source.

Funny thing is, he's probably right.
I've been around enough intelligent people to know poseurs when I see them. These gun threads seem to attract some oddballs. The good part is that this draws them out and exposes their wacky ramblings for all to see. The threads that involve the freedoms of speech or religion tend to do the same. Pseudo-liberals often despise both the First and Second Amendments. They are not liberals at all, but just the opposite--intolerant, undemocratic brownshirts. To hell with all of them.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thank you, but it's not worth the effort. I'll feel free to continue to assume your quote came from some wino on the street corner. I'm not in the mood for studying. It always gave me a headache in law school, plus it cut into my partying time. Justice Scalia and a majority of the Supreme Court flatly disagree with you. You can argue against their opinion in Heller, if you want, or you can continue to embarrass yourself in front of everyone reading this thread with your uninformed prattle.
At this point, your lack of understanding is willful. I have made my point clearly and demolished your argument. You therefore lose the debate. It has been a pleasure defeating you.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
He thinks quoting a 100+ year old State-level ruling will help him sound more intelligent as long as he hides the citation so that you don't read the rest of that ruling and utterly destroy him with his own source.

Funny thing is, he's probably right.
No, it's funny that when lack of historical understanding is posed when quotes that give historical context are unthinkingly dismissed by people advancing a political agenda without giving a thought to genuine history.

It's also funny that, despite being confronted with genuine history, somehow you are still able to reach the diametric opposite of the correct conclusion.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, it's funny that when lack of historical understanding is posed when quotes that give historical context are unthinkingly dismissed by people advancing a political agenda without giving a thought to genuine history.

It's also funny that, despite being confronted with genuine history, somehow you are still able to reach the diametric opposite of the correct conclusion.
Says the Guy who refuses to source material ;)

You may want to read Heller before embarrassing yourself further.
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
At this point, your lack of understanding is willful. I have made my point clearly and demolished your argument. You therefore lose the debate. It has been a pleasure defeating you.
And then Guy stomped his foot and slammed the door XD
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And what if it means state as in condition, a free state? This most certainly accords with the founders discussions and intent. There was no need to add any reference to States in the 2nd
This is how the Court saw it in Heller:

b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued . . . Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.” 1 Story §208 . . . It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free country’ ” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did not have a single meaning in the Constitution. (my emphasis)
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Says the Guy who refuses to source material ;)

You may want to read Heller before embarrassing yourself further.
Jerry, this is complicated stuff, it's tough. I want to try to help you understand. I do not want to ridicule you for not understanding. It's unsportsmanlike.

So, as clearly as I can, let me break it all down for you. The issue here not what Heller says, but whether the justifications presented in Scalia's opinion is Heller are correct. Scalia's opinion prevailed, as a matter of law. But as a matter of history, Scalia was quite wrong. The Stevens dissent is historically accurate. So, if you're trying to grapple with the history, steer clear of the Heller majority, it will just mislead you.

In short, Scalia's opinion in Heller is a laughingstock, and provides a very vulnerable foundation for the strong interpretation of the second amendment, because it is an expansionist ruling (not unlike Roe v. Wade), dressed up as a textualist analyses.

Here is some additional material that I encourage you to read:

Judge Wilkinson's critique of Heller and comparison with Roe:
Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law by J. Harvie Wilkinson :: SSRN

Judge Posner's critique of Scalia's rationale in Heller:
In Defense of Looseness | The New Republic

Professor Saul Cornell's extensive critique of the faulty history in Scalia's opinion:
Heller, New Originalism, and Law Office History: “Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss� - UCLA Law Review

Unthinking gun people love Scalia's opinion in Heller, but academics universally revile it, on both sides of the aisle. The left sees it clearly for the balderdash it is, and the conservatives who are capable of understanding (like the eminent conservative intellectual Judge Posner for example) are embarrassed by it.

So, if you take moment to get out of the gun-lover echo chamber, you can see that the Scalia opinion is Heller is garbage, and has been thoroughly debunked.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,392
Reaction score
76,516
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
At this point, your lack of understanding is willful. I have made my point clearly and demolished your argument. You therefore lose the debate. It has been a pleasure defeating you.
you never defeat anyone on gun debates because your arguments are contrary to known reality, legal scholarship and constitutional theory. You have never been able to grasp that the second amendment was the founders' action of recognizing an individual right they believed existed prior to the creation of what became the federal government of the USA. The second amendment was thus, never intended to create a new right but to RECOGNIZE a right the founders both believed existed at all times and to prevent the new government from intruding in an area it was never given any power to do so

when one understands this UNDISPUTED fact of constitutional scholarship and history, one cannot intelligently make the claims you do about what the second amendment. Your claims about the second amendment are completely undermined by the documented views of the founders as well as the ENTIRE framework that the constitution and the bill of rights are based upon
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,392
Reaction score
76,516
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Jerry, this is complicated stuff, it's tough. I want to try to help you understand. I do not want to ridicule you for not understanding. It's unsportsmanlike.

So, as clearly as I can, let me break it all down for you. The issue here not what Heller says, but whether the justifications presented in Scalia's opinion is Heller are correct. Scalia's opinion prevailed, as a matter of law. But as a matter of history, Scalia was quite wrong. The Stevens dissent is historically accurate. So, if you're trying to grapple with the history, steer clear of the Heller majority, it will just mislead you.

In short, Scalia's opinion in Heller is a laughingstock, and provides a very vulnerable foundation for the strong interpretation of the second amendment, because it is an expansionist ruling (not unlike Roe v. Wade), dressed up as a textualist analyses.

Here is some additional material that I encourage you to read:

Judge Wilkinson's critique of Heller and comparison with Roe:
Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law by J. Harvie Wilkinson :: SSRN

Judge Posner's critique of Scalia's rationale in Heller:
In Defense of Looseness | The New Republic

Professor Saul Cornell's extensive critique of the faulty history in Scalia's opinion:
Heller, New Originalism, and Law Office History: “Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss� - UCLA Law Review

Unthinking gun people love Scalia's opinion in Heller, but academics universally revile it, on both sides of the aisle. The left sees it clearly for the balderdash it is, and the conservatives who are capable of understanding (like the eminent conservative intellectual Judge Posner for example) are embarrassed by it.

So, if you take moment to get out of the gun-lover echo chamber, you can see that the Scalia opinion is Heller is garbage, and has been thoroughly debunked.
Cornell is a stooge of the Joyce Foundation whose major failure is he pretends that founders didn't support an individual right because they were aware of STATE restrictions on gun use. This is an idiotic argument Cornell has been pummeled over because the founders were only in a position to create a NEW federal government-not tell the several states that police powers they already exercised would have to be limited

his second major fail is that he claims that the power to regulate firearms comes from the FDR re-interpretation of the commerce clause which is accurate but it blows away his specious attempts to pretend the founders never intended an individual right when he admits that the founders never gave the federal government ANY power to regulate firearms

Posner is a loose cannon who was butt hurt over court of appeals decisions that dishonestly misinterpreted CRUIKSHANK were swept aside as the idiocy they were. He fails because if his "interpretation" is originalist, he must also reject the expansionist interpretation of the commerce clause highlighted by idiocy such as WICKARD
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is not analogous. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art that specifically referred to military service. In its original meaning it does not, as many historically ignorant people think, mean the same thing as simply "hold and own guns."

"The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment."

So, you fail this quiz.
And your proof of this is??? Yep. Didn't think so.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
At least you and I can agree that reguler civilians should have access to military firearms, to personally own them.
Yeah, that's true:thumbs:
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, it's funny that when lack of historical understanding is posed when quotes that give historical context are unthinkingly dismissed by people advancing a political agenda without giving a thought to genuine history.

It's also funny that, despite being confronted with genuine history, somehow you are still able to reach the diametric opposite of the correct conclusion.
Surprise surprise. No evidence still.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And your proof of this is??? Yep. Didn't think so.
This is a well settled historical matter. You should take a look at post 39 for some references to further reading.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,392
Reaction score
76,516
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is a well settled historical matter. You should take a look at post 39 for some references to further reading.
YOU mean two statist judges who pretend the ballot will should be used to overcome violations of fundamental constitutional rights and a paid stooge of the Joyce Foundation?
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's really not.
But it is. If you're not giving due respect to historical context how could you possibly expect to understand the meaning of an eighteenth century document?

It is historically inaccurate to anachronistically put a modern construction on the constitution, and it takes deep study of the time period to understand the original meaning.
 
Top Bottom