PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bomb


BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 06:08 AM
Like I said, more police state is coming. The scared sheeple will obey too.


In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks....

The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.

Another reason why Progressives are closet totalitarians.


http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/

InChiefsHell
04-23-2013, 06:22 AM
I'm gonna barricade myself in the Midwest...geeeez...

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 06:26 AM
Listen to what else he's said:

"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom’s annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have,” Mayor Bloomberg said."

Mayor Bloomberg explained that, unlike Washington politicians, mayors are people of action.

Geesh! This coming-out-of-the-closet totalitarian is scarey. Cosmos must love him.
And the left criticized Bush for being Hitler. :doh!:

http://politicker.com/2011/11/mayor-bloomberg-i-have-my-own-army-11-30-11/

LiveSteam
04-23-2013, 06:36 AM
Fucking Bloomberg :facepalm:

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 06:38 AM
Rumor has it he's eyeing the WH too. He feels he has executive experience and is a man of action. The last three words scare me.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2013, 06:40 AM
Bloomberg is worse than any liberal, wait is one of the worst liberals.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 06:41 AM
Bloomberg is worse than any liberal, wait is one of the worst liberals.

You think he's a liberal? He's no liberal. He's a Nazi.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2013, 06:53 AM
You think he's a liberal? He's no liberal. He's a Nazi.

But he was a Republican....

stonedstooge
04-23-2013, 06:58 AM
If O'Bama supports him, so do I/Libtards

blaise
04-23-2013, 07:00 AM
See, gun restrictions make safe populations. All you need is a gigantic police force.

Comrade Crapski
04-23-2013, 07:05 AM
That queer can't die from AIDS fast enough.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2013, 07:15 AM
That queer can't die from AIDS fast enough.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 07:19 AM
That queer can't die from AIDS fast enough.

Nah, he'll probably die from taking too big a gulp from a drink and choke to death.:doh!:

FishingRod
04-23-2013, 07:31 AM
Never let a good Crisis go to waste.

Dayze
04-23-2013, 07:36 AM
yeah good luck with that Bloomy.
you go ahead and change your State Constitution. see if that prevents any future attacks. hint - it won't.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 08:15 AM
yeah good luck with that Bloomy.
you go ahead and change your State Constitution. see if that prevents any future attacks. hint - it won't.

Well so far, his state SC has knocked him down on large soda drinks. I believe NY's safe act is also being challenged but that's Cuomo.

cosmo20002
04-23-2013, 08:20 AM
Listen to what else he's said:

"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom’s annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have,” Mayor Bloomberg said."

Mayor Bloomberg explained that, unlike Washington politicians, mayors are people of action.

Geesh! This coming-out-of-the-closet totalitarian is scarey. Cosmos must love him.
And the left criticized Bush for being Hitler. :doh!:



Not sure why you would bring me into this, you freak show. I've never supported these strict gun control measures and I never said anyone was like Hitler. You, however, are a batshit crazy loon.

loochy
04-23-2013, 08:23 AM
What do guns have to do with making a bomb out of household supplies?

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 08:24 AM
What do guns have to do with making a bomb out of household supplies?

Because they also had guns and no one should have those. Instead, they should rely on the state to keep them safe like the martial law that just passed in Boston.

Frazod
04-23-2013, 10:41 AM
Rumor has it he's eyeing the WH too. He feels he has executive experience and is a man of action. The last three words scare me.

Unless we get to the point where the White House just has a fucking price tag on it, I really don't think we have to worry about Bloomberg being elected to anything at a national level. I can see him ending up in the Senate being another Feinswine clone (because New York as a whole is that fucking stupid), but the good thing about him (and Rahmbo, too, for that matter) is that he is utterly unlikeable. No way he wins a national election. No charm, no charisma, nothing. Just a shit ton of cash and a Nazi agenda that even all that money can't really hide anymore.

Bump
04-23-2013, 10:44 AM
1930's germany here we come!

Thaaanks Obama

Garcia Bronco
04-23-2013, 12:39 PM
My interpretation of Bloomberg changes by the day. And it's getting worse.

King_Chief_Fan
04-23-2013, 01:31 PM
Because they also had guns and no one should have those. Instead, they should rely on the state to keep them safe like the martial law that just passed in Boston.

wut?

La literatura
04-23-2013, 01:34 PM
I wonder if it will revert back to an interpretation favored by the Court for most of the nation's history: the second amendment had more to do with enabling militias than it did with a person's own personal use.

Predarat
04-23-2013, 01:39 PM
How the hell that asshat nazi Bloomberg got elected for anything, ill never know. He is either cheating the vote counts or the people of NYC are very very stupid.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2013, 01:43 PM
How the hell that asshat nazi Bloomberg got elected for anything, ill never know. He is either cheating the vote counts or the people of NYC are very very stupid.

Do not discount how dumb they are.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 02:19 PM
Unless we get to the point where the White House just has a ****ing price tag on it, I really don't think we have to worry about Bloomberg being elected to anything at a national level. I can see him ending up in the Senate being another Feinswine clone (because New York as a whole is that ****ing stupid), but the good thing about him (and Rahmbo, too, for that matter) is that he is utterly unlikeable. No way he wins a national election. No charm, no charisma, nothing. Just a shit ton of cash and a Nazi agenda that even all that money can't really hide anymore.

LMAO

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 03:18 PM
I wonder if it will revert back to an interpretation favored by the Court for most of the nation's history: the second amendment had more to do with enabling militias than it did with a person's own personal use.

No, no it didn't. Take a minute or two and READ. Do some research. Your statement is a complete ignorant lie.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 03:23 PM
No, no it didn't. Take a minute or two and READ. Do some research. Your statement is a complete ignorant lie.

Yes it did.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 03:25 PM
In the vernacular of the time, militia meant the "people."

La literatura
04-23-2013, 03:26 PM
In the vernacular of the time, militia meant the "people."

No it didn't. They wouldn't even make sense textually.

"A well regulated [people], being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 03:27 PM
Yes it did.

No it didn't you ignorant piece of shit. You can believe it and say it all you want... but it won't make you correct, only more delusional.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 03:30 PM
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

La literatura
04-23-2013, 03:38 PM
No it didn't you ignorant piece of shit. You can believe it and say it all you want... but it won't make you correct, only more delusional.

Yes, it did. First of all, all of the Bill of Rights for most of American history were federal limitations. Not limitations on the state. So, when the 2nd Amend says that 'people have the right to keep and bear Arms' it's not saying, in its original meaning, that the state can't prohibit guns. A state was certainly able to do so. For most of American history, the meaning was intrinsically tied into federal limitations of state militias. In 1939, for example, in United States v. Miller, federal gun convictions against persons was okay because the guns targeted weren't for the purposes of a well-regulated militia.

Now perhaps you will know why Heller and McDonald were so notable.

Only after those two cases was it constitutionally proscribed that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to personal rights of bearing arms totally unrelated to militias, and that states couldn't offend those rights.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 03:43 PM
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

These statements are clear indications that the Founders advocated that free men join a militia when they felt it was necessary. The second amendment clearly evinces a spirit of people forming a state militia to keep order.

None of that means the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment's right to a gun was divorced from its militia purpose.

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 03:44 PM
Yes, it did. First of all, all of the Bill of Rights for most of American history were federal limitations. Not limitations on the state. So, when the 2nd Amend says that 'people have the right to keep and bear Arms' it's not saying, in its original meaning, that the state can't prohibit guns. A state was certainly able to do so. For most of American history, the meaning was intrinsically tied into federal limitations of state militias. In 1939, for example, in United States v. Miller, federal gun convictions against persons was okay because the guns targeted weren't for the purposes of a well-regulated militia.

Now perhaps you will know why Heller and McDonald were so notable.

Only after those two cases was it constitutionally proscribed that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to personal rights of bearing arms totally unrelated to militias, and that states couldn't offend those rights.

Revisionist ignorant bullshit. You sound like a fucking high school student who has little to no understanding of context or history. Heller is notable because it had to define what was UNDERSTOOD in the past. Only after the 2nd Amendment came under assault was it necessary.

It's sad how intelligent you THINK you are compared to reality. Now, admittedly you aren't Direckshun stupid, but you really need to think a bit more before you spot off on subjects you clearly know little about.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 03:50 PM
Lit is right that the 2nd Amendment applied to the Federal govt originally, and that it was never incorporated into the BoRs. It has been incorporated since Heller and another case in the Robert's Court.

However state's also allowed guns as a right back then too. The idea of a Federal BoR's came from the states. States can pass some gun laws but not a ban...because there is another delegated power given to Congress which is that they can call up the "militia" aka the people who hold arms. That means the people are to remain armed.

Self defense is a natural right. It is fundamental. So it cannot be taken away by any govt.

Dayze
04-23-2013, 03:52 PM
These statements are clear indications that the Founders advocated that free men join a militia when they felt it was necessary. The second amendment clearly evinces a spirit of people forming a state militia to keep order.

None of that means the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment's right to a gun was divorced from its militia purpose.

wuuut?

mnchiefsguy
04-23-2013, 03:52 PM
These statements are clear indications that the Founders advocated that free men join a militia when they felt it was necessary. The second amendment clearly evinces a spirit of people forming a state militia to keep order.

None of that means the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment's right to a gun was divorced from its militia purpose.

Actually, the 2nd, 3rd, and last quotes make no mention of militia at all, and specifically address an individuals right to bear arms.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 03:53 PM
It is an individual right but it's primarily a restriction on the Federal govt infringing the right. That was the new govt they feared.

BigChiefTablet
04-23-2013, 03:54 PM
What's sad is that the same people who tell you that the second amendment was only talking about militias have intentionally done everything they can to turn the word militia into something nearly synonymous with terrorist.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 03:57 PM
Revisionist ignorant bullshit. You sound like a ****ing high school student who has little to no understanding of context or history. Heller is notable because it had to define what was UNDERSTOOD in the past. Only after the 2nd Amendment came under assault was it necessary.

It's sad how intelligent you THINK you are compared to reality. Now, admittedly you aren't Direckshun stupid, but you really need to think a bit more before you spot off on subjects you clearly know little about.

Heller is notable because it enshrined the principle of personal safety into the Constitution, and paved the way for incorporation.

I understand this is most likely new to you, and it sounds counter-intuitive, but for most of American history, the Bill of Rights were not as expansive as they are today.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 03:59 PM
Self defense is a natural right. It is fundamental. So it cannot be taken away by any govt.

And that's a fine principle, but it's not what the 2nd Amendment really says or what it was interpreted as saying for most of American history.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 04:00 PM
wuuut?

I was surprised to learn about it, too. It's kind of like when you learn that Genesis doesn't actually say the snake is Satan. I'm like, "wuuut? But that's how I've been taught it."

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 04:04 PM
Heller is notable because it enshrined the principle of personal safety into the Constitution, and paved the way for incorporation.

I understand this is most likely new to you, and it sounds counter-intuitive, but for most of American history, the Bill of Rights were not as expansive as they are today.

It's sad that you honestly think this is accurate. It's so stunningly ignorant that I'm not even sure where to begin. It's literally like talking to a delusional psychopath... I am at a loss as to how to find anything close to common ground to anchor the debate on.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 04:05 PM
Heller is notable because it enshrined the principle of personal safety into the Constitution, and paved the way for incorporation.

I understand this is most likely new to you, and it sounds counter-intuitive, but for most of American history, the Bill of Rights were not as expansive as they are today.

They just were meant to put more restraint on the Federal govt as the states feared they would get swallowed up. They were added in order to ensure ratification.

But here's where you're wrong—it's a natural fundamental right meaning it precedes any govt. It traces back to English history where arms "had been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life." ( wikipedia)

"The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court." ( wikipedia)

I find it odd that the left speaks for incorporation all the time on other social issues but doesn't on guns. I hardly think any Framer or Founding Father would have approved of any state passing a ban on guns. If they felt they needed the right to fight a tyrannical govt, it wouldn't be possible if all states banned guns. It defies the idea of the "security of a free state."

stevieray
04-23-2013, 04:05 PM
What's sad is that the same people who tell you that the second amendment was only talking about militias have intentionally done everything they can to turn the word militia into something nearly synonymous with terrorist.:thumb:

La literatura
04-23-2013, 04:06 PM
It's sad that you honestly think this is accurate. It's so stunningly ignorant that I'm not even sure where to begin. It's literally like talking to a delusional psychopath... I am at a loss as to how to find anything close to common ground to anchor the debate on.

Perhaps we could discuss the holding of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)? Are you familiar with the case?

La literatura
04-23-2013, 04:07 PM
What's sad is that the same people who tell you that the second amendment was only talking about militias have intentionally done everything they can to turn the word militia into something nearly synonymous with terrorist.

That's because we have the National Guard now. Outside of that, militias are pretty much, well, yeah domestic extremist groups.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 04:09 PM
That's because we have the National Guard now. Outside of that, militias are pretty much, well, yeah domestic extremist groups.

No, they are the people still. Nice to see how totalitarians view the people as extremist.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 04:15 PM
They just were meant to put more restraint on the Federal govt as the states feared they would get swallowed up. They were added in order to ensure ratification.

But here's where you're wrong—it's a natural fundamental right meaning it precedes any govt. It traces back to English history where arms "had been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life." ( wikipedia)

"The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court." ( wikipedia)

I find it odd that the left speaks for incorporation all the time on other social issues but doesn't on guns. I hardly think any Framer or Founding Father would have approved of any state passing a ban on guns. If they felt they needed the right to fight a tyrannical govt, it wouldn't be possible if all states banned guns. It defies the idea of the "security of a free state."

As you point out, incorporation is only for "fundamental rights." Whether a right is fundamental or not -- there's some interpretive leeway allowed there. I think McDonald is a legitimate interpretation, but it's certainly not the traditional one.

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 04:17 PM
Perhaps we could discuss the holding of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)? Are you familiar with the case?

I hope to God you are joking. The Miller ruling does NOT support your position no matter how hard your tiny brain tries to shoehorn it into that role. Also, you are pinning your hopes on what is easily the most embarrassing Supreme Court in the entire history of the United States. The Hughes court was a fucking joke.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 04:18 PM
No, they are the people still. Nice to see how totalitarians view the people as extremist.

No, I just view extremists as extremists. You know, like plotting to overthrow the government and such.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 04:21 PM
I hope to God you are joking. The Miller ruling does NOT support your position no matter how hard your tiny brain tries to shoehorn it into that role. Also, you are pinning your hopes on what is easily the most embarrassing Supreme Court in the entire history of the United States. The Hughes court was a ****ing joke.

Here's my position: the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia. You don't think U.S. v. Miller supports that position?

I also don't see why your opinion on the Hughes court is relevant here.

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 04:27 PM
Here's my position: the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia. You don't think U.S. v. Miller supports that position?

I also don't see why your opinion on the Hughes court is relevant here.

Yes the Miller decision was "militia" based which was wrong to begin with BUT if you read the entire decision they make a concerted effort to broadly define militia and show that the de facto effect of the 2nd Amendment is to allow for every male citizens to legally keep their own arms. While this was an ass backwards way to come to a conclusion that had been accepted all along, it still came to the proper conclusion... one you seem too fucking stupid to get.

LiveSteam
04-23-2013, 04:55 PM
I just went to the mail box & retrieved this


US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
WASHINGTON DC 20515-2702
LEE TERRY 2nd district NE.

Dear Mr. Livesteam
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns regarding gun control and mental health. I appreciate learning your views on this matter.

As a proud member of the NRA,my record has always been solid when it comes to gun control. I believe that an essential element to a FREE SOCIETY is the right to responsible gun ownership. The second Amendment to our Constitution binds me as your Congressman not to infringe this right,and I have no intention of doing so.Gun ownership under the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege to be conferred by government. It is therefore incumbent upon me and all other elected officials to protect this right.

Like you I believe that we must address the mental health issues that are too often overlooked in this debate.

notorious
04-23-2013, 05:04 PM
LMAO

La literatura
04-23-2013, 05:12 PM
Yes the Miller decision was "militia" based which was wrong to begin with BUT if you read the entire decision they make a concerted effort to broadly define militia and show that the de facto effect of the 2nd Amendment is to allow for every male citizens to legally keep their own arms. While this was an ass backwards way to come to a conclusion that had been accepted all along, it still came to the proper conclusion... one you seem too ****ing stupid to get.

Just so we're on the same page, what do you mean "'militia' based?"

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 05:23 PM
Just so we're on the same page, what do you mean "'militia' based?"
Their reading of the 2nd Amendment was flawed from the beginning. They read it, like you do, to be focused SOLELY around militias and not individuals. Of course, the Hughes court started from this flawed position and made it clear that in FACT the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 05:29 PM
Their reading of the 2nd Amendment was flawed from the beginning. They read it, like you do, to be focused SOLELY around militias and not individuals. Of course, the Hughes court started from this flawed position and made it clear that in FACT the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals.

Okay, so here was my position (to which you said I was a liar, stupid, etc.):

Here's my position: the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia.

You've agreed that U.S. v. Miller fits that description. Are we ready for another case?

theelusiveeightrop
04-23-2013, 05:34 PM
Bloomberg never met a camera with a red light on that he didn't like. Almost as bad as Schumer.

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 05:36 PM
Okay, so here was my position (to which you said I was a liar, stupid, etc.):



You've agreed that U.S. v. Miller fits that description. Are we ready for another case?

I know your position and it is wrong. And yes you are piss ignorant for believing otherwise. The Miller decision is flawed for starting with that view, yes, but even it concludes with the individual right to bear arms protected.
So, trying to use Miller to prop up your position doesn't work.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 05:39 PM
I know your position and it is wrong. And yes you are piss ignorant for believing otherwise. The Miller decision is flawed for starting with that view, yes, but even it concludes with the individual right to bear arms protected.
So, trying to use Miller to prop up your position doesn't work.

First of all, do you remember the result (or conclusion, if you want) of the Miller decision?

AustinChief
04-23-2013, 05:47 PM
First of all, do you remember the result (or conclusion, if you want) of the Miller decision?

Of course I do and you need to watch your fucking condescending tone. It's sad that ignorant assholes like you cling desperately to a decision like Miller and try to contort it to fit your convoluted views. You do know that Miller went unrepresented in this case right? Only one side of this debate was argued before the court.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 06:02 PM
Of course I do and you need to watch your ****ing condescending tone. It's sad that ignorant assholes like you cling desperately to a decision like Miller and try to contort it to fit your convoluted views. You do know that Miller went unrepresented in this case right? Only one side of this debate was argued before the court.

Could you tell me what you think the result/conclusion of the Miller case was?

Also, when I'm trying to show what the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment meant to the Court, why would I not "cling" to Miller and other cases that demonstrate the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment as meant to the Court?

petegz28
04-23-2013, 08:47 PM
What do guns have to do with making a bomb out of household supplies?

Not a damn thing once you can see through all those liberal arms reaching out to prove otherwise

petegz28
04-23-2013, 08:51 PM
I love it when someone who is surrounded by personal protectors carrying guns, tells other people they don't need guns.

notorious
04-23-2013, 09:06 PM
I hope Bloomberg runs for President.

It would virtually guarantee that the Democrats would lose, and if the Pubs keep putting hot garbage out there we might actually get a Libertarian in office.

Raiderhader
04-23-2013, 09:06 PM
Anyone who says the SA was not intended for the people, or only intended for hunting or whatever, has clearly never researched the subject in full and are completely ignorant of the truth. Or they have and are just lying douche bags with an agenda to push. From Founders' own words, to the way our government was framed, to looking at the context of what these people had just gone through, it is incredible that anyone could say with a straight face that the SA was only intended for militias.

I've been pimping this site and intend to continue to do so, because it is THAT good. All sources are cited and linked.


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

La literatura
04-23-2013, 09:12 PM
Anyone who says the SA was not intended for the people, or only intended for hunting or whatever, has clearly never researched the subject in full and are completely ignorant of the truth. Or they have and are just lying douche bags with an agenda to push. From Founders' own words, to the way our government was framed, to looking at the context of what these people had just gone through, it is incredible that anyone could say with a straight face that the SA was only intended for militias.

I've been pimping this site and intend to continue to do so, because it is THAT good. All sources are cited and linked.


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Okay, let's do a thought experiment. Suppose in 1804 the State of New Jersey passes a law that says no citizen of the state may own a double barrel musket. It goes to the Supreme Court. Say 5 Founders are on the bench. Will the law be overturned or upheld?

Raiderhader
04-23-2013, 09:17 PM
Okay, let's do a thought experiment. Suppose in 1804 the State of New Jersey passes a law that says no citizen of the state may own a double barrel musket. It goes to the Supreme Court. Say 5 Founders are on the bench. Will the law be overturned or upheld?

Overturned.

La literatura
04-23-2013, 09:26 PM
Overturned.

Believe it or not, the Founders would say that it's not an issue for the US supreme court to deal with, because it wasn't a federal issue. States could, if they wanted to, even prohibit your speech and not violate the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights from the Founder's perspective was about restricting federal action, not state action. It's not until the 20th century when that changed.

So it would have been upheld at the SCOTUS, if it had gone there (which it wouldn't have for several reasons, but like I said, thought experiment)

Raiderhader
04-23-2013, 09:33 PM
Believe it or not, the Founders would say that it's not an issue for the US supreme court to deal with, because it wasn't a federal issue. States could, if they wanted to, even prohibit your speech and not violate the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights from the Founder's perspective was about restricting federal action, not state action. It's not until the 20th century when that changed.

So it would have been upheld at the SCOTUS, if it had gone there (which it wouldn't have for several reasons, but like I said, thought experiment)

Did you even bother to click on the link I provided? Or do you just "know better" than everyone else?

La literatura
04-23-2013, 09:45 PM
Did you even bother to click on the link I provided? Or do you just "know better" than everyone else?

I browsed through your link. It doesn't refute what I've said, though, about the original view of the Bill of Rights and federalism limits. I know constitutional history isn't really taught much aside from maybe Marbury and Brown v Board, so it comes as a surprise no doubt.

Raiderhader
04-24-2013, 05:07 AM
I browsed through your link. It doesn't refute what I've said, though, about the original view of the Bill of Rights and federalism limits. I know constitutional history isn't really taught much aside from maybe Marbury and Brown v Board, so it comes as a surprise no doubt.

Browsed it? Yeah, I see you are really concerned with gathering all the information you can to make an informed decision.

Everything from our founding to the framing refutes your view of the Second Amendment. But you are not really interested in facts are you?

La literatura
04-24-2013, 06:13 AM
Browsed it? Yeah, I see you are really concerned with gathering all the information you can to make an informed decision.

Everything from our founding to the framing refutes your view of the Second Amendment. But you are not really interested in facts are you?

Your view, that the Founder's idea of the Second Amendment was to prohibit both federal and state action against gun regulation, has no basis in their framing of our gov't (federalism) or their understanding of what the Bill of Rights did.

I only browsed your link because it simply restates things I've already read before. You really don't think "guncite.com" is the first source to lay out that information, do you? I've read the majority opinions of Heller and McDonald.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 06:14 AM
Could you tell me what you think the result/conclusion of the Miller case was?

Also, when I'm trying to show what the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment meant to the Court, why would I not "cling" to Miller and other cases that demonstrate the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment as meant to the Court?

Bump for AustinChief.

LiveSteam
04-24-2013, 07:26 AM
Bump for AustinChief.

& I FYName here as well. Some help here Mods.

Little Jr lawyer going to a second tier law school knows all.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 11:39 AM
Could you tell me what you think the result/conclusion of the Miller case was?

Also, when I'm trying to show what the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment meant to the Court, why would I not "cling" to Miller and other cases that demonstrate the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment as meant to the Court?

The result was to uphold the legality of the NFA which is funny since they uphold the NFA by pointing out that a shotgun didn't serve a military purpose. Why is that funny? Two reasons... #1 shotguns had been used in the Civil War and WWI so that basic contention was wrong and #2 by that reasoning... the NFA's limits on machine guns is invalidated by this very decision.

The fact is, Miller was a crap decision that was argued by only one side. You clinging to it is pathetic. That's like you using the "win" you get from a forfeited game to "prove" how good your team is. Nice job idiot.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 11:45 AM
Believe it or not, the Founders would say that it's not an issue for the US supreme court to deal with, because it wasn't a federal issue. States could, if they wanted to, even prohibit your speech and not violate the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights from the Founder's perspective was about restricting federal action, not state action. It's not until the 20th century when that changed.

So it would have been upheld at the SCOTUS, if it had gone there (which it wouldn't have for several reasons, but like I said, thought experiment)

Yes yes the incorporation doctrine. What does this have to do with your claim that the Court for most of our history only saw the 2nd amendment in terms of a militia and not personal use? Two completely unrelated things.

The site provided by Raiderhader proves that your statement is wrong. Period. No matter what revisionist bullshit you want to spew.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 01:46 PM
& I FYName here as well. Some help here Mods.

Little Jr lawyer going to a second tier law school knows all.

Excuse me, People's Community Law Clinic of the Upper Midwest is not a second tier law school. We may not yet be accredited by some dictatorial ruling body of elites, but that doesn't mean we aren't first tier in spirit.

LiveSteam
04-24-2013, 01:59 PM
Excuse me, People's Community Law Clinic of the Upper Midwest is not a second tier law school. We may not yet be accredited by some dictatorial ruling body of elites, but that doesn't mean we aren't first tier in spirit.

LMAO

La literatura
04-24-2013, 02:13 PM
The result was to uphold the legality of the NFA which is funny since they uphold the NFA by pointing out that a shotgun didn't serve a military purpose. Why is that funny? Two reasons... #1 shotguns had been used in the Civil War and WWI so that basic contention was wrong and #2 by that reasoning... the NFA's limits on machine guns is invalidated by this very decision.

The fact is, Miller was a crap decision that was argued by only one side. You clinging to it is pathetic. That's like you using the "win" you get from a forfeited game to "prove" how good your team is. Nice job idiot.

Yes, the Miler result was that Congress could regulate and even prohibit certain types of guns. Particularly, guns that didn't have a military use, because the Second Amendment was intrinsically based on the limitations of the federal government to prevent state militias from forming.

It really doesn't matter that you disagree with the ruling. I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm simply telling you what the historical view of the Second Amendment was. It's like me saying that slavery existed in the United States before the Civil War, and you saying that I'm a liar, that I'm stupid, and that I cling to some random band of black farm laborers in South Carolina who were bought and kept as property by a plantation owner as evidence.

Now that you agree with me that the case demonstrates what I've said to be true (and you've displayed your disliking of the case's holding, which is really irrelevant to this discussion), we can continue to another case which I believe demonstrates my position (and once again, I will lay that out for you lest you be confused once more and think my position is something other than my position (e.g., that I don't think people should have guns for personal safety use)): the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia.

Let's discuss Presser v. Illinois (1886). In this case, both sides had counsel, and Charles Hughes wasn't even on the Court. What does Presser v. Illinois say about the 2nd Amendment's relation to state militia? And what does it say about state/federal gov't issues? And what does it say about Presser's attempt to tie the 14th Amendment into his alleged right to form his own militia?

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 02:16 PM
Excuse me, People's Community Law Clinic of the Upper Midwest is not a second tier law school. We may not yet be accredited by some dictatorial ruling body of elites, but that doesn't mean we aren't first tier in spirit.

Ok, this was funny.

But back to your idiotic assertion that the Courts had a narrow "militia only" view of the 2nd amendment.

How about Dred Scott? Why would the Court warn that if persons of the negro race were granted full citizenship it would mean they would have a RIGHT to bear arms? If the right to bear arms only related to militias and militias can be regulated by the state... see where this is going? It proves that the Court accepted the right to bear arms as an individual right.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 02:17 PM
Yes yes the incorporation doctrine. What does this have to do with your claim that the Court for most of our history only saw the 2nd amendment in terms of a militia and not personal use? Two completely unrelated things.

The site provided by Raiderhader proves that your statement is wrong. Period. No matter what revisionist bullshit you want to spew.

It's quite important to my claim that the 2nd Amendment, for most of American history, was intrinsically tied into militia purposes.

McDonald is the first time that the Second Amendment right was incorporated to the states. Before that, if you had a problem with your state's gun law because it infringed on your personal use of a gun, who did you take it up with?

La literatura
04-24-2013, 02:22 PM
Ok, this was funny.

But back to your idiotic assertion that the Courts had a narrow "militia only" view of the 2nd amendment.

How about Dred Scott? Why would the Court warn that if persons of the negro race were granted full citizenship it would mean they would have a RIGHT to bear arms? If the right to bear arms only related to militias and militias can be regulated by the state... see where this is going? It proves that the Court accepted the right to bear arms as an individual right.

Not a bad question. I can see where you might think you have made a good point. The answer is obvious, though, if you know about what rights the states granted to citizens. Not, emphatically not, what rights the Amendments granted to those citizens from laws by the states (which was essentially none until the 20th century).

Where was Dred Scot a citizen, if he was one? Missouri, I believe? Did Missouri law grant citizens the ability to own a firearm? Absolutely. I don't know that for sure, but I know it as general knowledge.

ForeverChiefs58
04-24-2013, 02:29 PM
It's quite important to my claim that the 2nd Amendment, for most of American history, was intrinsically tied into militia purposes.

McDonald is the first time that the Second Amendment right was incorporated to the states. Before that, if you had a problem with your state's gun law because it infringed on your personal use of a gun, who did you take it up with?

Too bad you can't sue yourself for being such a fucking idiot.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 02:30 PM
Too bad you can't sue yourself for being such a ****ing idiot.

It's truly something to think about.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 02:32 PM
Yes, the Miler result was that Congress could regulate and even prohibit certain types of guns. Particularly, guns that didn't have a military use, because the Second Amendment was intrinsically based on the limitations of the federal government to prevent state militias from forming.

It really doesn't matter that you disagree with the ruling. I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm simply telling you what the historical view of the Second Amendment was. It's like me saying that slavery existed in the United States before the Civil War, and you saying that I'm a liar, that I'm stupid, and that I cling to some random band of black farm laborers in South Carolina who were bought and kept as property by a plantation owner as evidence.

Now that you agree with me that the case demonstrates what I've said to be true (and you've displayed your disliking of the case's holding, which is really irrelevant to this discussion), we can continue to another case which I believe demonstrates my position (and once again, I will lay that out for you lest you be confused once more and think my position is something other than my position (e.g., that I don't think people should have guns for personal safety use)): the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia.

Let's discuss Presser v. Illinois (1886). In this case, both sides had counsel, and Charles Hughes wasn't even on the Court. What does Presser v. Illinois say about the 2nd Amendment's relation to state militia? And what does it say about state/federal gov't issues? And what does it say about Presser's attempt to tie the 14th Amendment into his alleged right to form his own militia?

Again these are different issues that you are trying to conflate. Yes I disagree with the decision and you are correct that it doesn't matter. The decision though, does NOT prove your distorted view of historical reality. As I have stated and as Raiderhader has SHOWN your view is simple revisionist crap.

Presser v Illinois does nothing to prop up your ridiculous argument. Presser (and Cruikshank before ) served to affirm States rights in regards to militias.

What you are trying to do is obvious and logically fallacious. Yes the Court held that the 2nd Amendment (just like all of the Bill of Rights) applied to the Federal govt not States until of course we had the 14th and incorporation of those rights past the State level. This was true for roughly half of US history so far. That does not in ANY way somehow imply that the right was not an individual right.
That is as fucking retarded as saying the the 1st Amendment was not an individual right until after the 14th Amendment. Do you see how stupid this attempt of yours is?

La literatura
04-24-2013, 02:39 PM
Again these are different issues that you are trying to conflate. Yes I disagree with the decision and you are correct that it doesn't matter. The decision though, does NOT prove your distorted view of historical reality. As I have stated and as Raiderhader has SHOWN your view is simple revisionist crap.

Presser v Illinois does nothing to prop up your ridiculous argument. Presser (and Cruikshank before ) served to affirm States rights in regards to militias.

What you are trying to do is obvious and logically fallacious. Yes the Court held that the 2nd Amendment (just like all of the Bill of Rights) applied to the Federal govt not States until of course we had the 14th and incorporation of those rights past the State level. This was true for roughly half of US history so far. That does not in ANY way somehow imply that the right was not an individual right.
That is as ****ing retarded as saying the the 1st Amendment was not an individual right until after the 14th Amendment. Do you see how stupid this attempt of yours is?

Good Lord. How many times did I repeat my position? I never said the Second Amendment wasn't an "individual right." That's never been a part of my position. Here's my position, once again, and this time I will bold it. The 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia.

It was emphatically not, as it is now, as it is since 2008, viewed as a protection of the average citizen's personal use of a weapon. States, counties, cities, were certainly free to regulate, many weapons and not be limited by the Second Amendment. Rather, the Second Amendment was a rule that said, "state militias are important for order, and so Congress can't create a law that rips the teeth away from a state wanting to set up one."

I admire your ability to look these cases up on google and get a pro-gun right's assessment of them, but they don't disturb my historically correct view of the traditional view of the Second Amendment.

And yes, Presser v. Illinois does affirm my position. Let's discuss it as we did Miller so I can once again demonstrate the correctness of my position.

Chief Faithful
04-24-2013, 02:43 PM
It's quite important to my claim that the 2nd Amendment, for most of American history, was intrinsically tied into militia purposes.

McDonald is the first time that the Second Amendment right was incorporated to the states. Before that, if you had a problem with your state's gun law because it infringed on your personal use of a gun, who did you take it up with?

Wow, where do you come up with this? The second amendment was inspired from the English Bill of Rights from 1689 where right to bear arms was considered a natural right for purposes of individual self-defense, individual resistance to oppression and third the ability to organize with the state in defense as part of the individuals civic duty. At the time of the English Bill of Rights the individual right for self defense was a earth moving new right. Our forefathers were very aware and in agreement with this natural right and felt the English were not observing it in the new world and this to them was a very oppressive treatment. There was a strong desire to ensure this individual right was not lost, which is why it is an amendment so high on the list. Your interpretation leaves out 2 of the 3 intrinsic purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

By the way, the Supreme Court agrees (2008 and again in 2010) the intent of the second amendment is both an individual right and a militia right just as was originally defined in the English Bill of Rights. I believe the only reason the Supreme Court did not have similar rulings much earlier is because only the current generation is trying to redefine it.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 02:44 PM
Not a bad question. I can see where you might think you have made a good point. The answer is obvious, though, if you know about what rights the states granted to citizens. Not, emphatically not, what rights the Amendments granted to those citizens from laws by the states (which was essentially none until the 20th century).

Where was Dred Scot a citizen, if he was one? Missouri, I believe? Did Missouri law grant citizens the ability to own a firearm? Absolutely. I don't know that for sure, but I know it as general knowledge.

You can't possibly be this stupid and expect to actually win a debate. You continue to think (for some ridiculous reason) that a right can't be an individual right until after incorporation. The argument that the 2nd Amendment refers to a collective right and not an individual right has NOTHING to do with when the incorporation doctrine was applied to it. NOTHING. How fucking dense does one have to be to try to shoehorn that it there. Wow.

Ok now back to Dred Scott. Again 9not surprisingly) you missed the point. WHY would the Supreme Court mention negros having a right to bear arms if in fact the right ONLY ap[plied to State militias? If a state has the right to regulate it's own militia(which we can both agree was definitely the thinking of the Court at that time) why couldn't that racist state simply say "no darkies in our militias!!" It makes ZERO sense to mention the right to bear arms unless the court CLEARLY sees it as an individual right.

Unlike you, I don't have to contort shit to find some crazy way to prop up a ridiculous stance.I just have to read.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 02:54 PM
Wow, where do you come up with this? The second amendment was inspired from the English Bill of Rights from 1689 where right to bear arms was considered a natural right for purposes of individual self-defense, individual resistance to oppression and third the ability to organize with the state in defense as part of the individuals civic duty. Your interpretation leaves out 2 of the 3 intrinsic purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

By the way, the Supreme Court agrees (2008 and again in 2010) the intent of the second amendment is both an individual right and a militia right just as was originally defined in the English Bill of Rights. I believe the only reason the Supreme Court did not have similar rulings much earlier is because only the current generation is trying to redefine it.

I came up with it by studying Constitutional Law history. What I'm saying is actually not very controversial.

Here's what the English Bill of Rights says about arms: "And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare . . . That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;. . . "

La literatura
04-24-2013, 02:58 PM
You can't possibly be this stupid and expect to actually win a debate. You continue to think (for some ridiculous reason) that a right can't be an individual right until after incorporation. The argument that the 2nd Amendment refers to a collective right and not an individual right has NOTHING to do with when the incorporation doctrine was applied to it. NOTHING. How ****ing dense does one have to be to try to shoehorn that it there. Wow.

I've actually never thought nor reasonably implied that "a right can't be an individual right until after incorporation." That literally makes no sense. Are you sure you are able to handle this discussion, because it seems like you are resorting to made-up fantasies you wish I'd said, rather than an ability to deal with what I had said.

Ok now back to Dred Scott. Again 9not surprisingly) you missed the point. WHY would the Supreme Court mention negros having a right to bear arms if in fact the right ONLY ap[plied to State militias? If a state has the right to regulate it's own militia(which we can both agree was definitely the thinking of the Court at that time) why couldn't that racist state simply say "no darkies in our militias!!" It makes ZERO sense to mention the right to bear arms unless the court CLEARLY sees it as an individual right.

Unlike you, I don't have to contort shit to find some crazy way to prop up a ridiculous stance.I just have to read.

Why would the Supreme Court give that reason in the Dred Scot case? For the reason I just said. I really think that is simple to comprehend. But let's actually turn to the language of the case, though. Is there a line you wish to quote from it?

The ironic thing with your last paragraph is that you've completely contorted what I've said in this thread and have done a poor job at reading my posts. But you're right that you don't have to do so. I wish you would actually carry out like that.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 03:03 PM
I came up with it by studying Constitutional Law history. What I'm saying is actually not very controversial.

No, it's not controversial... it's a complete joke of a lie. You are basing your lie upon the few cases in history where the Court addressed anything even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment. You then extrapolate those cases to be the entirety of the Court's thinking on the subject.

So basically if the Court didn't rule that the sky was blue, we can assume that for the last 230+ years they didn't think it was! Truly stunning logic!

As I showed with Dred Scott, the Court accepted the right to bear arms outside JUST the context of a militia. There weren't previous rulings because there didn't need to be. That doesn't mean the Court's recent rulings are some break from tradition.

Sad about how ridiculous you are and your over inflated opinion of yourself.... BUT I'm encouraged to know that idiots like you are the future of the left.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 03:13 PM
No, it's not controversial... it's a complete joke of a lie. You are basing your lie upon the few cases in history where the Court addressed anything even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment. You then extrapolate those cases to be the entirety of the Court's thinking on the subject.

This isn't a lie. Yes, I'm basing my opinion largely from what the Court said in Second Amendment cases. How else would I be able to determine the "interpretation favored by the Court for most of the nation's history?" By looking at something other than Supreme Court cases? Truly stunning logic!

So basically if the Court didn't rule that the sky was blue, we can assume that for the last 230+ years they didn't think it was! Truly stunning logic!

So basically, if the Court consistently ruled that the sky was legally blue until 2008, we can assume [actually, we can say with certainty] that for most of American history, the sky was legally blue according to the Court.

As I showed with Dred Scott, the Court accepted the right to bear arms outside JUST the context of a militia. There weren't previous rulings because there didn't need to be. That doesn't mean the Court's recent rulings are some break from tradition.

Of course they accepted that such a right existed. All we have to do is look at state constitutions or laws to know that such a right existed. That doesn't mean it meant the Second Amendment was always understood to be an absolute federal protection of an ordinary citizen's right to a weapon from any regulation/prohibition. It simply was not that expansive.

Now you probably know why Heller and McDonald was notable. Cases don't get to the Supreme Court because the existing law needs to be verified.

Let's talk about Presser, shall we?

La literatura
04-24-2013, 03:16 PM
Sad about how ridiculous you are and your over inflated opinion of yourself.... BUT I'm encouraged to know that idiots like you are the future of the left.

I'm reminded of your discussion with cdcox over global warming. You enter a discussion of a field in which you have little to no actual education in, outside of your own untrustworthy research, declare the opponent (who has been educated in that subject) to be a liar, a moron, etc., and end up basically flailing about in an emotional, off-point tantrum.

Humility and self-awareness seem to be character traits you desperately need to improve on.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 03:34 PM
This isn't a lie. Yes, I'm basing my opinion largely from what the Court said in Second Amendment cases. How else would I be able to determine the "interpretation favored by the Court for most of the nation's history?" By looking at something other than Supreme Court cases? Truly stunning logic!

So basically, if the Court consistently ruled that the sky was legally blue until 2008, we can assume [actually, we can say with certainty] that for most of American history, the sky was legally blue according to the Court.

You are not a bright individual at all. I will try to explain it again so maybe you can follow but I doubt it. The Court has had very few cases in history that relate to the 2nd Amendment at all. Discounting Miller where one side didn't show up, there are NONE until recently that would deal directly with the issue of individual rights outside the militia context. THAT DOES NOT mean that the right didn't exist as such in the minds of the Court. We can look at historical documents to show that. We can also look at glancing mentions like the one in Dred Scott.

Of course they accepted that such a right existed. All we have to do is look at state constitutions or laws to know that such a right existed. That doesn't mean it meant the Second Amendment was always understood to be an absolute federal protection of an ordinary citizen's right to a weapon from any regulation/prohibition. It simply was not that expansive.

Now you probably know why Heller and McDonald was notable. Cases don't get to the Supreme Court because the existing law needs to be verified.

Let's talk about Presser, shall we?

I have never stated that the 2nd Amendment was always that expansive. Even Heller and McDonald don't say the 2nd nullifies any and all regulation of arms. I have simply stated that your convoluted view that the 2nd was seen by the Court as ONLY applicable in the context of a state militia is ridiculous revisionist history. A bald faced lie.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 03:40 PM
You are not a bright individual at all. I will try to explain it again so maybe you can follow but I doubt it. The Court has had very few cases in history that relate to the 2nd Amendment at all. Discounting Miller where one side didn't show up, there are NONE until recently that would deal directly with the issue of individual rights outside the militia context. THAT DOES NOT mean that the right didn't exist as such in the minds of the Court. We can look at historical documents to show that. We can also look at glancing mentions like the one in Dred Scott.

Okay, let's suppose Miller wasn't at one point in time the controlling view of the Second Amendment. Let's take a look at Presser, yeah? I've asked you some questions about it which you've still evaded.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 03:44 PM
I'm reminded of your discussion with cdcox over global warming. You enter a discussion of a field in which you have little to no actual education in, outside of your own untrustworthy research, declare the opponent (who has been educated in that subject) to be a liar, a moron, etc., and end up basically flailing about in an emotional, off-point tantrum.

Humility and self-awareness seem to be character traits you desperately need to improve on.

You have no clue what my education is. Oh wait... your just going to assume... much like your baseless assumptions about the Supreme Court's thinking throughout history.

Also, you do know that cdcox is NOT formally educated in the subject right? Cdcox and I have very similar educational background as a matter of fact. (So does RainMan .. although I went to far better schools :D )

The fact that you think I didn't clearly win the debate with cdcox shows your complete lack of ability to think critically. Btw TipTap is the one with the formal training in the field(pretty sure on this)... and he didn't refute what I was saying...

Now on to your last little insult.

Listen you presumptuous little prick. I'm sure I could do with humility, self awareness really isn't an issue but you know what is? I am a hypocrite. Which means... curb your fucking attitude or find someplace else to spew your revisionist crap.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 03:51 PM
Okay, let's suppose Miller wasn't at one point in time the controlling view of the Second Amendment. Let's take a look at Presser, yeah? I've asked you some questions about it which you've still evaded.

Presser has nothing to do with this argument. The fact that you think it does shows how off you are. Nothing in Presser addresses the Court's feeling one way or the other on applying the 2nd Amendment outside the sole context of a militia. If you can't understand that than there is no point in continuing.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 03:54 PM
You have no clue what my education is. Oh wait... your just going to assume... much like your baseless assumptions about the Supreme Court's thinking throughout history.

Also, you do know that cdcox is NOT formally educated in the subject right? Cdcox and I have very similar educational background as a matter of fact. (So does RainMan .. although I went to far better schools :D )

Yes, I'm going to assume that you're not a professor of earth science and you don't have a law degree, or a degree in American history. You can confirm that formally, but your informal ways of doing so are fine by me.

Listen you presumptuous little prick. I'm sure I could do with humility, self awareness really isn't an issue but you know what is? I am a hypocrite. Which means... curb your ****ing attitude or find someplace else to spew your revisionist crap.

So you're going to ban me because I'm telling you a history you find uncomfortable (though you're not even really listening to me)?

La literatura
04-24-2013, 03:57 PM
Presser has nothing to do with this argument. The fact that you think it does shows how off you are. Nothing in Presser addresses the Court's feeling one way or the other on applying the 2nd Amendment outside the sole context of a militia. If you can't understand that than there is no point in continuing.

Actually, Presser does deal with the 2nd Amendment and its applicability to the context of a militia and a state regulation.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 04:03 PM
Actually, Presser does deal with the 2nd Amendment and its applicability to the context of a militia and a state regulation.

No it doesn't.. at least not in the way you seem to think it does. It does not show in any way that the Court ONLY thought it was applicable in relation to a state militia.. which is what you have been arguing.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 04:08 PM
No it doesn't.. at least not in the way you seem to think it does. It does not show in any way that the Court ONLY thought it was applicable in relation to a state militia.. which is what you have been arguing.

Are you going to answer my previous questions, or should I just go right to "What's the result/conclusion in Presser?"

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 04:10 PM
Yes, I'm going to assume that you're not a professor of earth science and you don't have a law degree, or a degree in American history. You can confirm that formally, but your informal ways of doing so are fine by me.


I am not a professor of anything so you are correct there. My background is mostly in engineering, math, logic, obviously computer science. Have I studied law? yes. Am I a lawyer, no. Have I studied American History extensively? yes. Do I have a degree in the field. No. None of this invalidates my knowledge on the subjects and it's simply ad hominem bullshit but you know that.

So you're going to ban me because I'm telling you a history you find uncomfortable (though you're not even really listening to me)? No I won't ban you. If being an idiot was bannable the DC subforum would be virtually empty.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 04:13 PM
Are you going to answer my previous questions, or should I just go right to "What's the result/conclusion in Presser?"

Again, the conclusion is irrelevant since it does nothing to support your ridiculous original claim that the Court ONLY saw the 2nd Amendment in the context of state militias. Notice the emphasis of "ONLY" that is the place where you went wrong from the beginning.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 04:18 PM
I am not a professor of anything so you are correct there. My background is mostly in engineering, math, logic, obviously computer science. Have I studied law? yes. Am I a lawyer, no. Have I studied American History extensively? yes. Do I have a degree in the field. No. None of this invalidates my knowledge on the subjects and it's simply ad hominem bullshit but you know that.

Of course it doesn't invalidate what you're saying. I'm not using your lack of education as part of my argument. So this isn't "ad hominem" bullshit. I'm not attacking you personally. Your apparent lack of knowledge itself and your inability to stay on point in this argument, however, is doing a fine job at invalidating your argument.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 04:18 PM
And I'm done debating on your terms until you address the link Raiderhader gave. Would you like me to cut/paste from it?

La literatura
04-24-2013, 04:20 PM
Again, the conclusion is irrelevant since it does nothing to support your ridiculous original claim that the Court ONLY saw the 2nd Amendment in the context of state militias. Notice the emphasis of "ONLY" that is the place where you went wrong from the beginning.

I stated from the beginning that the militia purpose was intrinsically wrapped up in how the Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment. Your emphasis of "ONLY" is something you're bringing into this discussion.

Can you state in your own words what the conclusion of Presser was? Even if you find it irrelevant, we should at least get it on the table for others to judge.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 04:21 PM
And I'm done debating on your terms until you address the link Raiderhader gave. Would you like me to cut/paste from it?

I did address the link Raiderhader gave. I addressed it in a post to him explaining why I browsed the link.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 04:23 PM
Of course it doesn't invalidate what you're saying. I'm not using your lack of education as part of my argument. So this isn't "ad hominem" bullshit. I'm not attacking you personally. Your apparent lack of knowledge itself and your inability to stay on point in this argument, however, is doing a fine job at invalidating your argument.

Just because you can't follow along doesn't mean I am not on point. Don't blame me for you inability to keep up. I honestly hope to God you aren't just parroting some bullshit you heard in class one day and this is instead the result of your convoluted understanding of basic logic. It would be tragic if there is an entire class of students being polluted with this garbage.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 04:30 PM
I stated from the beginning that the militia purpose was intrinsically wrapped up in how the Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment. Your emphasis of "ONLY" is something you're bringing into this discussion.

Can you state in your own words what the conclusion of Presser was? Even if you find it irrelevant, we should at least get it on the table for others to judge.

You do know what the word intrinsic means right?

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 04:32 PM
I did address the link Raiderhader gave. I addressed it in a post to him explaining why I browsed the link.

yes, you "browsed" the link and saw nothing new. Ok, I "browsed" Presser and saw nothing relevant. Address the link in detail (specifically St. George Tucker's commentaries) and I will address Presser in detail (silly futile exercise but what the hell, I'll do it)

WhiteWhale
04-24-2013, 05:00 PM
Another reason why Progressives are closet totalitarians.


They're only closet totalitarians if your head is in the sand. They're actually pretty overt about it.

Never waste a good crisis.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 05:46 PM
Just because you can't follow along doesn't mean I am not on point. Don't blame me for you inability to keep up. I honestly hope to God you aren't just parroting some bullshit you heard in class one day and this is instead the result of your convoluted understanding of basic logic. It would be tragic if there is an entire class of students being polluted with this garbage.

No, it's just in Supreme Court cases and Con Law textbooks.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 05:48 PM
You do know what the word intrinsic means right?

Yes.

Raiderhader
04-24-2013, 06:06 PM
Your view, that the Founder's idea of the Second Amendment was to prohibit both federal and state action against gun regulation, has no basis in their framing of our gov't (federalism) or their understanding of what the Bill of Rights did.

I only browsed your link because it simply restates things I've already read before. You really don't think "guncite.com" is the first source to lay out that information, do you? I've read the majority opinions of Heller and McDonald.


It is the documented view of many Founders that the people themselves were the militia. Colonial militia men were expected as much as possible to provide their own arms and powder.

So, in playing along with your militia centered theory, I find it nigh impossible to accept the premise of your theoretical SC case. A state law passed denying the right to own a double barreled musket would not pass muster as that weapon was viewed not just as a personal weapon but, also a weapon of/for the defense of the country.

Raiderhader
04-24-2013, 06:09 PM
No, it's not controversial... it's a complete joke of a lie. You are basing your lie upon the few cases in history where the Court addressed anything even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment. You then extrapolate those cases to be the entirety of the Court's thinking on the subject.

So basically if the Court didn't rule that the sky was blue, we can assume that for the last 230+ years they didn't think it was! Truly stunning logic!

As I showed with Dred Scott, the Court accepted the right to bear arms outside JUST the context of a militia. There weren't previous rulings because there didn't need to be. That doesn't mean the Court's recent rulings are some break from tradition.

Sad about how ridiculous you are and your over inflated opinion of yourself.... BUT I'm encouraged to know that idiots like you are the future of the left.


I am discouraged to know that they are the future of anything.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 07:22 PM
yes, you "browsed" the link and saw nothing new. Ok, I "browsed" Presser and saw nothing relevant. Address the link in detail (specifically St. George Tucker's commentaries) and I will address Presser in detail (silly futile exercise but what the hell, I'll do it)

At this point, you have to realize you're a beaten dog. Let's have a quick overview of how this conversation played out (so far).

1) I say that the Court's interpretation [not yours, not mine, not even James Madison's] of the Second Amendment for most of American history viewed the militia component as intrinsic to the right to bare arms.
2) You throw tantrum.
3) I cite U.S. v. Miller which you agree demonstrates what I've said in (1).
4) You say we should disregard Miller as a statement of the Court's interpretation because you don't agree with it.
5) I cite Presser v. Illinois.
6) You say its irrelevant, and won't discuss it unless I "address" Raiderhader's link.
7) A quick browse of Raiderhader's link clearly shows no mention of Presser or Miller, or even any Supreme Court case dealing with the 2nd Amendment.

So how am I to demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment if you refuse to allow me to even bring up any Court cases dealing with the Second Amendment? Instead, you want me to focus on something other than documents that would demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation.

At this point, you have to realize how unreasonable you are being. And that's a generous, a very generous, characterization of how you've acted in this thread.

LiveSteam
04-24-2013, 07:26 PM
At this point, you have to realize you're a beaten dog. Let's have a quick overview of how this conversation played out (so far).

1) I say that the Court's interpretation [not yours, not mine, not even James Madison's] of the Second Amendment for most of American history viewed the militia component as intrinsic to the right to bare arms.
2) You throw tantrum.
3) I cite U.S. v. Miller which you agree demonstrates what I've said in (1).
4) You say we should disregard Miller as a statement of the Court's interpretation because you don't agree with it.
5) I cite Presser v. Illinois.
6) You say its irrelevant, and won't discuss it unless I "address" Raiderhader's link.
7) A quick browse of Raiderhader's link clearly shows no mention of Presser or Miller, or even any Supreme Court case dealing with the 2nd Amendment.

So how am I to demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment if you refuse to allow me to even bring up any Court cases dealing with the Second Amendment? Instead, you want me to focus on something other than documents that would demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation.

At this point, you have to realize how unreasonable you are being. And that's a generous, a very generous, characterization of how you've acted in this thread.

I can still buy guns. & i will be able to continue to buy guns.































































YOU LOSE FOOL!

La literatura
04-24-2013, 07:31 PM
It is the documented view of many Founders that the people themselves were the militia. Colonial militia men were expected as much as possible to provide their own arms and powder.

So, in playing along with your militia centered theory, I find it nigh impossible to accept the premise of your theoretical SC case. A state law passed denying the right to own a double barreled musket would not pass muster as that weapon was viewed not just as a personal weapon but, also a weapon of/for the defense of the country.

I'm sorry you find it "nigh impossible to accept the premise" of my hypothetical case. It was supposed to be instructive in showing how important federalism was in the early American nation.

Perhaps if we dealt with an actual state regulation that occurred in the 19th century regarding an infringement of someone's right to drill or parade with arms you would be able to think about the actual historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment (and the Bill of Rights).

Freedom of speech was obviously important to the Founders too. I can find you a lot of websites that are quite objective that would show you that, as well. That doesn't mean the Constitutional interpretation of the 1st Amendment for most of American history meant that a state couldn't prohibit someone from advocating to protest against the governor and march on the state capital.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 07:33 PM
I am discouraged to know that they are the future of anything.

Aw, shucks.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 07:34 PM
I can still buy guns. & i will be able to continue to buy guns.

YOU LOSE FOOL!

What exactly did I lose by you being able to buy guns? Certainly not an argument about the Supreme Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 07:38 PM
At this point, you have to realize you're a beaten dog. Let's have a quick overview of how this conversation played out (so far).

1) I say that the Court's interpretation [not yours, not mine, not even James Madison's] of the Second Amendment for most of American history viewed the militia component as intrinsic to the right to bare arms.
2) You throw tantrum.
3) I cite U.S. v. Miller which you agree demonstrates what I've said in (1).
4) You say we should disregard Miller as a statement of the Court's interpretation because you don't agree with it.
5) I cite Presser v. Illinois.
6) You say its irrelevant, and won't discuss it unless I "address" Raiderhader's link.
7) A quick browse of Raiderhader's link clearly shows no mention of Presser or Miller, or even any Supreme Court case dealing with the 2nd Amendment.

So how am I to demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment if you refuse to allow me to even bring up any Court cases dealing with the Second Amendment? Instead, you want me to focus on something other than documents that would demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation.

At this point, you have to realize how unreasonable you are being. And that's a generous, a very generous, characterization of how you've acted in this thread.

Oh wait! I can do this to. My recap.
1) you lie
2) I call you out
3) you cite nonsense and disregard anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived view
4) I stop playing along until you address link
5) you continue to be an idiot and apparently don't know how the web works


Let's very quickly address #5...

Raiderhader's link was to guncite.com right?
Here on that very site are comments addressing Supreme Court decisions... http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

So it's painfully clear that you have no interest in the truth but instead just pushing your fucked up view of history.

Let's also address the fact that it is the right to BEAR arms.. not bare.

I also didn't say we should disregard Miller because I don't agree with it, I said it alone doesn't demonstrate your point AND it was an uncontested case so it is hardly representative.

Let's pretend for a second that Miller perfectly illustrates your point. (which it doesn't) At best, it shows that throughout most of the 20th century the Court took a militia-centric view of the 2nd. That does not equate to "most of it's history."

Where you continue to go wrong is to assume that because the few older cases do address issues related to militias that they represent ALL of the Court's thoughts regarding the 2nd. That is a MASSIVE (and false) assumption on your part. This is refuted by historical papers from jurists throughout American history and also shown clearly to be false in other places like the Dred Scott opinion.

It's a basic failure in logic on your part and proves how desperate you are to justify your revisionist history bullshit.

btw, you little list is nigh upon delusional.. oh and you quite obviously don't have a clue what intrinsic means.

AustinChief
04-24-2013, 07:43 PM
What exactly did I lose by you being able to buy guns? Certainly not an argument about the Supreme Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.

No you lost that by not having a clue what you are talking about. You might want to take some logic classes because it's fairly clear that you lack understanding of some fairly basic concepts.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 07:52 PM
Raiderhader's link was to guncite.com right?
Here on that very site are comments addressing Supreme Court decisions... http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

So it's painfully clear that you have no interest in the truth but instead just pushing your ****ed up view of history.

Okay great. So now we can focus on these cases, then, right (and other SCOTUS cases)?

Let's also address the fact that it is the right to BEAR arms.. not bare.

Okay, we can.

I also didn't say we should disregard Miller because I don't agree with it, I said it alone doesn't demonstrate your point AND it was an uncontested case so it is hardly representative.

Oh, I never said that it alone is all I have. It does demonstrate my point, though. I have other cases, too.

Let's pretend for a second that Miller perfectly illustrates your point. (which it doesn't) At best, it shows that throughout most of the 20th century the Court took a militia-centric view of the 2nd. That does not equate to "most of it's history."

Okay, which is why I'm trying to talk about other cases from SCOTUS history, in addition to Miller.

Where you continue to go wrong is to assume that because the few older cases do address issues related to militias that they represent ALL of the Court's thoughts regarding the 2nd. That is a MASSIVE (and false) assumption on your part. This is refuted by historical papers from jurists throughout American history and also shown clearly to be false in other places like the Dred Scott opinion.

It's a basic failure in logic on your part and proves how desperate you are to justify your revisionist history bullshit.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm using the actual court cases that demonstrate the Court's thoughts regarding the 2nd Amendment (and other Amendments), as well as 'other places' in American history.

btw, you little list is nigh upon delusional.. oh and you quite obviously don't have a clue what intrinsic means.

I'm using it like "essential." I think that's what it means. The militia clause was interpreted by the Supreme Court as an essential component of the 2nd Amendment. Feel free to show why 'intrinsic' doesn't mean that.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 07:52 PM
No you lost that by not having a clue what you are talking about. You might want to take some logic classes because it's fairly clear that you lack understanding of some fairly basic concepts.

I'm lacking some fairly basic logical concepts? Such as what?

Raiderhader
04-24-2013, 08:26 PM
I'm sorry you find it "nigh impossible to accept the premise" of my hypothetical case. It was supposed to be instructive in showing how important federalism was in the early American nation.

Perhaps if we dealt with an actual state regulation that occurred in the 19th century regarding an infringement of someone's right to drill or parade with arms you would be able to think about the actual historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment (and the Bill of Rights).

Freedom of speech was obviously important to the Founders too. I can find you a lot of websites that are quite objective that would show you that, as well. That doesn't mean the Constitutional interpretation of the 1st Amendment for most of American history meant that a state couldn't prohibit someone from advocating to protest against the governor and march on the state capital.


Ha, the guy who can't even admit that the larger scope of the Civil War was over the battle for authority with in the Federalist system is wanting to teach me about how important Federalism was in the early days of the country. That's rich.

I understand all too well the importance placed upon it. INFACT, I have even used the very concept of it when making the case for the true reasoning behind the Second Amendment. It goes something like this -

The Founders of this country did not trust government. They saw it as a necessary evil. This can be seen in not only their own words but, in the way the Constitution was designed. They did not believe that any one entity should have to much power, let alone all of it. The system of checks and balances goes beyond just the three branches of the federal government. There are checks of the federal system from the states. There are checks on the states from the federal level. There are checks on the people by both. There are checks on both from the people. How are the people to keep the governments they elect in check with out being equally armed as them? Given the Founders mistrust in government, and given the fact that they had just come out of a situation where they had taken up arms against their government, it is pretty apparent to me that they intended for the populace to always be armed, just in case.

With that thought process, your theoretical SC case still ends with the law being over-turned. Lest the delicate balance of power that they worked so hard to create be upset.

So you lose on the militia argument, and you lose on your Federalism argument. Are you starting to detect a pattern here? Because I sure am. ;)

La literatura
04-24-2013, 08:38 PM
Ha, the guy who can't even admit that the larger scope of the Civil War was over the battle for authority with in the Federalist system is wanting to teach me about how important Federalism was in the early days of the country. That's rich.

While it's true that the southern 'peculiar institution' was the most significant factor that ultimately led to the Civil War, that doesn't mean that federalism wasn't an important issue in America's early history (and still to this day, to a still significant degree). No need to throw in a false dichotomy in here.

With that thought process, your theoretical SC case still ends with the law being over-turned. Lest the delicate balance of power that they worked so hard to create be upset.

Well, I hope you're sitting down, because in the case I most recently gave you, the law was upheld.

So you lose on the militia argument, and you lose on your Federalism argument. Are you starting to detect a pattern here? Because I sure am. ;)

Yes, I am. It's that you have a really elementary, superficial understanding of American history. Also, you have basically no clue what the incorporation of the Bill of Rights entails, if you've even heard of that phrase before tonight. :)