You assume all kinds of things, Goobieman.
We have been over all of your blah blah whoopla before and all you are doing is repeating your interpretations. See, the difference is that I actually read the words and follow their clear and concise meaning whereas you read the words and interpret meanings that aren't expressed anywere by any of the Founders.
I have to say that reading your posts makes me realize that there are people out there desperate enough to be right that they dispose of things like honesty and integrity, and it makes me a little sad about the future. Not much I can do about that... but hope.
You are making stuff up and basically lying. You are ignorant of the basic underpinnings of the document and have no clue about the concept of natural law. You are dishonest and have no integrity:mrgreen:
whereas backing oneself into opposition minded opinions makes his case :dohBacking yourself with a bunch of like-minded opinions does not make your case,
whereas backing oneself into opposition minded opinions makes his case :doh
Backing oneself with facts makes one's case, dude. :lol:
I guess that I am simply tired of whiney people that say that they are right and if you disagree with them, you are lying, ignorant or dishonest. It is too gradeschool for me to take seriously.
I am right because
1) every document generated within 20 years of the bill of rights says that the right was individual in nature and an inalienable one
2) because the bill of rights was a limit on the federal government-and did not serve to limit the inalienable rights of the people
3) Because Both supreme court decisions support my position-if MILLER held that you had to be in the National Guard to enjoy second amendment protection, Miller would have lost on standing
4) because of the 9th and Tenth amendments
But aren't you the one complaining about that? :lol:
The Issue At Hand is: What is the purpose of allowing the people to "bear arms"?
That is what you are not addressing. It is not just some "inalienable right". It is a right that serves a purpose.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary to the security of a free state to maintain a well regulated militia. The people maintain the militia... so the people are allowed to maintain arms for that purpose.
The historical narrative that petitioners must endorse would thus treat the Federal Second Amendment as an odd outlier, protecting a right unknown in state constitutions or at English common law, based on little more than an overreading of the prefatory clause.
...
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Or, a more likelly explanation:Oh... I get it. It is quite simple. :lol:
They are making their decision based off of an assumption of what you are trying to say. I am being literal. Sorry, subtelty is not your strong suit, is it?
Except that you're wrong.We have been over all of your blah blah whoopla before and all you are doing is repeating your interpretations. See, the difference is that I actually read the words and follow their clear and concise meaning whereas you read the words and interpret meanings that aren't expressed anywere by any of the Founders.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand...
Irrelevant to the issue at hand...
Irrelevant to the issue at hand...
Irrelevant to the issue at hand...
The Issue At Hand is: What is the purpose of allowing the people to "bear arms"?
That is what you are not addressing. It is not just some "inalienable right". It is a right that serves a purpose.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary to the security of a free state to maintain a well regulated militia. The people maintain the militia... so the people are allowed to maintain arms for that purpose.
That's correct.People always had the right to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they wanted and since you are unable to demonstrate that this right was ever extinquished the burden is not upon us to prove it still exists or to justify its existence but rather the burden is upon you to demonstrate its demise.
You cannot
That's correct.
There is absolutely no evidence that the 2nd was intended to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right; there is ample evidence that the 2nd was intended to protect an individual right not connected to actual service in the militia so that, among other things, the collective right could continue to be exercised.
The court agrees with this. Bodhi is demonstrated wrong.
Not that he has the intellectual honesty to admit it.
One must wonder where he stands on the "human rights" abuses by China, etc.I haven't seen much in the way of intellectual honesty from him. He either ignores or pretends that the concept of pre-existing rights was not something the founders assumed. he seems to think that the only rights people have are ones that are specifically given to them by a piece of paper which-of course-is anathema to the proper understanding of the delegation of powers that serve as the foundation of the USSC.
Never mind that his argument has been rendered null and void by the court.Like most statists, he engages in an outcome based laughable mis-analysis of the Bill of Rights in order to advance his hoplophobic nonsense.
Except that you're wrong.
The court says so.
One must wonder where he stands on the "human rights" abuses by China, etc.
Originally Posted by Goobieman
- Never mind that his argument has been rendered null and void by the court.
- The court agrees with this. Bodhi is demonstrated wrong.
- Except that you're wrong. The court says so.
Originally Posted by TurtleDude
Like most statists, he engages in an outcome based laughable mis-analysis of the Bill of Rights in order to advance his hoplophobic nonsense.
Irrelevant being any evidence that b-slaps your silly contrarian nonsense?
People always had the right to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they wanted and since you are unable to demonstrate that this right was ever extinquished the burden is not upon us to prove it still exists or to justify its existence but rather the burden is upon you to demonstrate its demise.
You cannot
Bodisatva
The Issue At Hand is: What is the purpose of allowing the people to "bear arms"?
That is what you are not addressing. It is not just some "inalienable right". It is a right that serves a purpose.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary to the security of a free state to maintain a well regulated militia. The people maintain the militia... so the people are allowed to maintain arms for that purpose.
Turtledude
Irrelevant being any evidence that b-slaps your silly contrarian nonsense?
People always had the right to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they wanted and since you are unable to demonstrate that this right was ever extinquished the burden is not upon us to prove it still exists or to justify its existence but rather the burden is upon you to demonstrate its demise.
You cannot
Goobieman
Not that he has the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Turtledude
I haven't seen much in the way of intellectual honesty from him. He either ignores
:rofl You guys done sucking each others dicks yet? Don't get all bothered, jeesh, it is just a joke. Lighten up already.
.
Is that sort of language permissible on this board? I:roll:
I guess so, since the filter didn't stop it.
Besides, it was just a joke, since the two of you are humping each other in some vain attempt to degrade me.
It is a lot more acceptable than you and he, insulting me and breaking that one rule about being a jerk in the DP Rules. :2razz:
Hey, what I find interesting, is that again, you have not even tried to be reasonable or to answer the purpose of the 2nd. Instead, you opt to ignore, thus showing your hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty.
Let me know when you are ready to sink your entire case by answering that very simple question.
:2wave:
Yes. We all know that you believe you're right and the court is wrong.The court says so, huh? All I have to say is.... Plessy vs. Ferguson
Oh, the irony....I am extremely rational and you two running around making pathetic ad homs against me...
Except that's -not- the issue at hand.You two accusing me of not being intellectually honest after you completely ignore The Issue At Hand as I outlined.
Yes. We all know that you believe you're right and the court is wrong.
That doesn't make you right, that just makes you dishonest --
and if you take your argument to court, you'll lose, every time.
Oh, the irony....
So, were you going to address my revised question, or were you going continue to avoid having to post anyting substantive?
Except that's -not- the issue at hand.
The issue at hand - what firearms are considerd 'arms' under the 2nd -- is the issue you're avoiding.
YOUR issue has been settled, and you were on the losing side.
Accept that, kitty, and you'll be a lot happier.
You are being dishonest-again.
Your profound ignorance or ignoring of the entire basis upon which the nation was founded is unbelievable. You seem to think that the only rights that people were presumed to have were ones that were spelled out and if a right was not specifically illustrated, it did not exist.
The purpose of the second was to guarantee one of the most important pre-existing rights and that was the right of free men to be armed. It also was to prevent the evils of a standing army.
Anytime you want to compare your credentials in this field with me I would be happy to oblige you.
You don't like guns so you pretend that an amendment that protects gun ownership doesn't say what it clearly does say.
You ignore both history
and the obvious realities surrounding the writing of this amendment.
A militia is something that is formed WHEN NEEDED, as opposed to a STANDING ARMY-which, by definition, exists in both peacetime and war.
FOR a militia to be effective, those who join it must be able to provide their own individual weapons and have some inkling as to how those firearms, sabers, dirks, bayonets, or swords are to be used.
IF THE citizens are disarmed, an effective ("well regulated" -meaning a militia that had been assembled, provided with orders and officers and ready to function) militia could not be readily formed in time of emergency.
For those who claim that the right (which PRE-EXISTED THE CONSTITUTION) only attached after the militia had been mustered and set into action is idiotic and has absolutely no support IN ANY document or speech or other supporting entity contemporaneous with the drafting and adoption of 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?