Skip to main content

View Diary: AWB and honesty (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, might as you will, try to belittle my (7+ / 0-)

    position, I will not buy into your "law school" training. You do need to get a refund on that if this "argument from authority" is all you could come up with here, really.  

    The only valid argument is: force rules this world.  He with the most force, wins.

    Case law must keep in context Supreme Court Decisions.

    United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

        6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

    http://www.apfn.org/...
    In the face of this Supreme Court record, is it accurate for gun control advocates to claim that the non-individual nature of the Second Amendment is “perhaps the most well-settled” point in all of American constitutional law?[313] The extravagant claim cannot survive a reading of what the Supreme Court has actually said about the Second Amendment. In the written opinions of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, the Second Amendment does appear to be reasonably well-settled--as an individual right. The argument that a particular Supreme Court opinion’s language about the Second Amendment does not reflect what the author “really” thought about the Second Amendment cannot be used to ignore all these written opinions—unless we presume that Supreme Court Justices throughout the Republic’s history have written things about the Second Amendment that they did not mean.

    While the Warren Court and the Burger Court offered mixed records on the Second Amendment, the opinions from the Rehnquist Court (including from the Court’s “liberals” Ginsburg and Stevens) are just as clear as the opinions from the Supreme Court Justices of the nineteenth century: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a right that belongs to individual American citizens. Although the boundaries of the Second Amendment have only partially been addressed by Supreme Court jurisprudence, the core of the Second Amendment is clear: the Second Amendment--like the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments--belongs to “the people”, not the government.

    Maybe someday you'll accept history, if it were anything other than what I've presented here, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

    The "commerce clause" is a red-herring, no thanks, I don't need to be intentionally distracted.

    And I guess I win, I have the force of law behind me.

    ;)

    P.S. "Tone" what down again????

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:25:10 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You came to a "gunfight" with a knife. You're so (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, Quicklund

      far out there that I'd feel guilty for even trying to continue.

      Sorry!

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:35:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Empty words, if you had a legitimate position (7+ / 0-)

        You'd have presented it.

        I do love debate, really.  I actually can admit when I'm wrong and if you could teach me where historically this position is incorrect, I'm willing to listen.

        Saying I'm wrong doesn't mean a thing.  

        I do play a doctor, no no a lawyer on the interwebs though and that gives me authority over all things...really.

        ROFL.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:53:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Funny how it sometimes turns out that ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, gerrilea, FrankRose

          some people who "went to law school" were actually only the janitor.  Others, it seems, attended "law school" by studying a limited supply of books in a prison library.  

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:15:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  See you think that "historically" and "legally" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PinHole

          have some sort of magical connection to each other, and you ain't paying me enough to do all of the work that would be needed to get you up to speed in this area.

          Suffice it to say "historically" is generally used by persons fixated on "Original Ientent", and the whole O.I. thing is pretty much only a right wing talking point. I have yet to see that you've put any sort of a left wing spin on your stuff and, until you find a way to do that, you're simply not to be taken seriously on a left wing site.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:37:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Constitution is "left" or "right"?? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            I must "spin" my perspective of the law to met your arbitrary standards?

            Isn't that what is commonly called propaganda?


            "When you have the law on your side, pound the law.  When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have neither the law nor the facts going for you, pound the table."
            Your pounding on the table here may distract the uninitiated, not me.  What is clear however is that you have no legitimate position.

            Could I refer you to Logical Fallacies for your educational enjoyment?

            "No True Scotsman."
            "Red Herring."
            "Appeal to Authority"

            None of these fallacious arguments actually address the issues raised.  Do you have historical evidence contrary to mine that shows the US Constitution creates rights, specifically the RKBA's?

            I'll accept legitimate Supreme Court decisions as the starting point, okay?  And dissents are nice, but they are not admissible as proof your position is actually valid today, in these United States.

            Work with me.

            :)

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:13:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, you need to ask someone on a right wing (0+ / 0-)

              site to "work with" you. I'm trying to have discussions, not training sessions.

              But I'll give you one break. Tell me, in "Readers Digest" version what you know about the Federalist Society, and what you think of it. I mean,if you can't even pass this test, then you really need to go back and start over.

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:09:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "No True Scotsman" again? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon

                Jeeze...here I thought you had a law degree.

                Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist, great historical debates they had as anonymous posters in the newspapers of the day.

                In the end, we have a little bit of both worlds they wished to create.

                IMO, misdirection meant to obfuscate the Ratification Documents submitted by the 13 original States.  The majority of which also presented demands for the newly formed government to include a "bill of rights".  Guarantee's that the new central government could not ever do certain things.  

                Of course, through the years many "jurists" have been intentionally misdirected and divided by "original intent"....false dichotomies, IMO.

                It's nice to know what they thought, but there is no lawful obligation to "interpret" what they wrote as binding on how the constitution is currently written.  There is a lawful obligation to those legal documents called the Ratification Documents.  Something the authoritarians of today wish to pretend do not exist.

                Hey, but again, you keep on keeping on here and believing whatever it is you wish.  Clearly you have nothing and I had hoped for some honest debate, not patronizing false logic.

                Good day.

                PS. remind me not to waste any more precious electrons, will ya?!

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:57:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site