- 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.
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."
What do you think?
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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Says the Guy who refuses to source materialNo, 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.
And then Guy stomped his foot and slammed the door XDAt 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 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
Says the Guy who refuses to source material
You may want to read Heller before embarrassing yourself further.
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.
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.
It's really not.Jerry, this is complicated stuff, it's tough.
At least you and I can agree that reguler civilians should have access to military firearms, to personally own them.......
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.
Yeah, that's true:thumbs:At least you and I can agree that reguler civilians should have access to military firearms, to personally own them.
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.
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.
It's really not.
It's about as cut & dry as anything can be. Every person has the right to personally own and carry any firearm they desire.But it is.
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?