Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments [W:609]

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

You can say that all you want and it means nothing in reality.

except that my arguments are consistent with what legal scholars and many courts are starting to adopt. I was arguing the same stuff Sanford Levinson set forth in his seminal law review article in 1989 in the Yale Law Journal. People like you claimed that there is no individual right and yet the leading academics have discarded that statist bovine excrement almost completely.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I am grounded in the Constitution, legislation, and case law. What the founders thought in 1787 means absolutely nada now.

that proves how little education you apparently have on constitutional theory and scholarship these days. that sort of nonsense is consistent with someone who understands enough to know he is wrong but won't admit it. Like it or not, Scalia forced the Heller dissenters to adopt his paradigm of analysis and it is still in place now.

can you find any documents that support the belief that the federal government was supposed to have gun control power.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

There is no point to debating someone that refuses to answer questions and refuses to acknowledge Constitutional decisions on Constitutional questions. You are definitely in the wrong here, you refuse to answer any commentary with anything other than trolling so, I am not resigning to anything, you never made any attempt at debate in the first place.

as I noted, they come here not because they are expert on constitutional theory or gun laws or gun use or criminology but because they have issues with the pro rights culture and the voting patterns of NRA members. they cannot really argue the position they come with so they pretend to argue on a field in which they have no understanding

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

LOL, start posting which cases, which laws and which specific phrases in the Constitution. It will be fun picking apart your lies and overturned cases.

OC, you have a predetermined confirmation bias, which means you can't debate honestly, and no matter how many times I point out your nonsense, your response will be "nuh uh."

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Turtledude, please show where I denied the right to own and bear arms.

Once you admit you are in error, we can look at "can you find any documents that support the belief that the federal government was supposed to have gun control power", and you can tell us what Heller has done with that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Turtledude, please show where I denied the right to own and bear arms.

Once you admit you are in error, we can look at "can you find any documents that support the belief that the federal government was supposed to have gun control power", and you can tell us what Heller has done with that.

you claim the right does not exist if someone is not in the unorganized militia. you claim the right requires affirmative action on the part of the citizen. You also believe that the federal government does have the proper power to ban guns for those who are not covered by your restricted version of the second amendment

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

you claim the right does not exist if someone is not in the unorganized militia. you claim the right requires affirmative action on the part of the citizen. You also believe that the federal government does have the proper power to ban guns for those who are not covered by your restricted version of the second amendment

I wrote nothing of the sort, little buddy.

Either you are simply uninformed or you are simply lying. You cannot point out that what I wrote is what you said I wrote.

Quote it, directly, or admit you are wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I wrote nothing of the sort, little buddy.

Either you are simply uninformed or you are simply lying. You cannot point out that what I wrote is what you said I wrote.

Quote it, directly, or admit you are wrong.

we will let the long time readers of this forum decide. we know you are trying to finesse an interpretation of the second amendment that allows gun bans by the federal government. there is no other reason for trying to restrict the vesting of the right to certain citizens and not to others who are of age and have no adjudicated disqualifying features.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Jet57 educated OpportunityCost on the 2nd and the NRA, and OC just does not get it.

this was your first post I could find (admittedly I didn't go back through all 500+ posts) and that demonstrates a hostility to gun rights. you also then claimed that the unorganized militia "get to own and bear arms" which suggests others do not

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Rarely have I ever seen the pro gun side be willing to cooperate on any gun control issue. Almost never

why should people who exercise a right cooperate with dishonest attempts to denigrate the right by those whose main goal is to extinguish the right. Its like claiming that the NAACP and CORE didn't cooperate with the Klan's attempts to impose Jim Crow laws

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

we will let the long time readers of this forum decide. we know you are trying to finesse an interpretation of the second amendment that allows gun bans by the federal government. there is no other reason for trying to restrict the vesting of the right to certain citizens and not to others who are of age and have no adjudicated disqualifying features.

No other person knows anything of the sort, only you with your kantian reality of "what I think in my brain, a la Trump, is the reality 'out there'". Post where you think your inference is supported. You can't.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I am grounded in the Constitution, legislation, and case law. What the founders thought in 1787 means absolutely nada now.

Make the legal case -- with citations -- for your claim that the right is only exercisable through militia membership.

Quote the legislation and case law which support this. If you're "grounded" in it, this should be no problem for you.

Any answer other than what I ask for is an admission that you cannot do so. :shrug:

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

this was your first post I could find (admittedly I didn't go back through all 500+ posts) and that demonstrates a hostility to gun rights. you also then claimed that the unorganized militia "get to own and bear arms" which suggests others do not

My post reveals that OC did not understand what Jet57 was saying.

You don't understand, either deliberately or ignorantly, what I am writing.

American citizens have the right to own and bear weapons according to the 2d. Heller has incorporated the 2d now, so the federal government not the states have the final say.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Make the legal case -- with citations -- for your claim that the right is only exercised through militia membership.

Quote the legislation and case law which support this. If you're "grounded" in it, this should be no problem for you.

Any answer other than what I ask for is an admission that you cannot do so.

Harshaw, you said that, not me. Show exactly where I wrote such a thing. You can't.

I have you, OC, and TurtleDude spinning on your fingers because not one of you can support your accusations against me.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Harshaw, you said that, not me. Show exactly where I wrote such a thing. You can't.

Right here:

^^The unorganized militia in America, all subordinate to the Constitution, get to own and bear arms.

Nope, you are failing. As individuals with the individual right, when they gather as unorganized militia, they have the right to be armed.

Now . . .

Make the legal case -- with citations -- for your claim that the right is only exercised through the militia.

Quote the legislation and case law which support this. If you're "grounded" in it, this should be no problem for you.

Any answer other than what I ask for is an admission that you cannot do so.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Right here:





Now . . .

Make the legal case -- with citations -- for your claim that the right is only exercised through the militia.

Quote the legislation and case law which support this. If you're "grounded" in it, this should be no problem for you.

Any answer other than what I ask for is an admission that you cannot do so.

Do you understand what that means, Harshaw?

Citizens have the right to bear and own guns. When they meet as the unorganized militia, they carry arms and can be called up by the state or federal governments.

Do you not understand that? You are just trolling because I caught you in lies.

Only Harshaw is claiming that " the right [to bear arms and own them] is only exercised through the militia."

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Do you understand what that means, Harshaw?

Citizens have the right to bear and own guns. When they meet as the unorganized militia, they carry arms and can be called up by the state or federal governments.

Do you not understand that? You are just trolling because I caught you in lies.

This is your own lie.

In response to OC explaining that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right like all the others and doesn't require militia membership to exercise, your response was:

Nope, you are failing. As individuals with the individual right, when they gather as unorganized militia, they have the right to be armed.

You disagreed with him and claimed the exercise of the right was dependent on "gathering" as a militia. (Never mind that to "gather as unorganized militia" is a contradiction is terms, but that's what happens you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.)

But I'm still waiting for you to cite legislation and case law -- cite it and quote it -- to back up ANY of your assertions, whatever you're claiming they are from post to post.

You haven't done it because you can't. It does not exist. And you don't even know how to look.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

OC, you have a predetermined confirmation bias, which means you can't debate honestly, and no matter how many times I point out your nonsense, your response will be "nuh uh."

I am attempting to repeatedly open a dialogue with you. So far, you have done nothing but shut down all attempts to do so. I have to conclude you are content to evade discussion because you aren't interested in discussion of the issues.

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

OC, you have a predetermined confirmation bias, which means you can't debate honestly, and no matter how many times I point out your nonsense, your response will be "nuh uh."

He nor Turtledude nor RedAkston, nor Rucker61, nor BretJ will ever debate the subject of guns honestly or with one shred of credibility. Their job is to deny and deflect.

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

This is your own lie.

In response to OC explaining that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right like all the others and doesn't require militia membership to exercise, your response was:



You disagreed with him and claimed the exercise of the right was dependent on "gathering" as a militia. (Never mind that to "gather as unorganized militia" is a contradiction is terms, but that's what happens you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.)

But I'm still waiting for you to cite legislation and case law -- cite it and quote it -- to back up ANY of your assertions, whatever you're claiming they are from post to post.

You haven't done it because you can't. It does not exist. And you don't even know how to look.

Militia membership is not required now: it was required both before and after the second amendment was passed.

Read a book: learn something, argue with credibility.

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I am attempting to repeatedly open a dialogue with you. So far, you have done nothing but shut down all attempts to do so. I have to conclude you are content to evade discussion because you aren't interested in discussion of the issues.

So far all you've done is deflect and lie.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

This is your own lie.

In response to OC explaining that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right like all the others and doesn't require militia membership to exercise, your response was:



You disagreed with him and claimed the exercise of the right was dependent on "gathering" as a militia. (Never mind that to "gather as unorganized militia" is a contradiction is terms, but that's what happens you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.)

But I'm still waiting for you to cite legislation and case law -- cite it and quote it -- to back up ANY of your assertions, whatever you're claiming they are from post to post.

You haven't done it because you can't. It does not exist. And you don't even know how to look.

I have corrected you above your post. You can keep lying, but that changes nothing.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So far all you've done is deflect and lie.

I do not like to disparage other posters, but yes falsehood is the path of OC, Harshaw, and TurtleDude.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I have corrected you above your post. You can keep lying, but that changes nothing.

No, you said what you said.

But I'll tell you what:

Make a clear point that you think we're wrong about. State it, stand behind it.

Then, give the legislation and case law you say you're grounded in -- give citiations, and quote extensively from the language -- to support your point.

Do you have the stones to do that? As I said -- if you're right, this should be easy for you.

So do it.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I already stated it several times, Harshaw.

You won't accept it, so that's on you. You have to stop lying.