Democrats to fence (wall) off convention center

[jackstar7]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

Only if you are not so good with the English. If you have further evidence that the second amendment is intended to be the only collective right I'd love to read it.

http://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

- wiki

Confusion about parsing the second amendment is entirely a late 20th century phenomenon enjoyed by people who know they can't get the votes for a repeal amendment.

So only members of the military?

 

[Knowing]

So only members of the military?

People and citizens can be members of the military but the language suggests no requirement for military service as a prerequisite for exercising this right or any other.

Again, I'd be happy to review any evidence you think advances a contrary opinion.

 

[sm625]

I just don't understand why having a border wall is any different.

Because Raycisst. That is why.

 

[chucky2]

Because Raycisst. That is why.

Wait man, you forgot misogynist and xenophobic too. You need to get the matra right: Because racist misogynist xenophobic!!!

There you go, nice and complete.

 

[jackstar7]

People and citizens can be members of the military but the language suggests no requirement for military service as a prerequisite for exercising this right or any other.

Again, I'd be happy to review any evidence you think advances a contrary opinion.

Sorry, my only evidence is grammar.

 

[Knowing]

That's not very persuasive given that the grammar fully supports over 200 years of case law and interpretation as an individual right.

 

[ivwshane]

That's not very persuasive given that the grammar fully supports over 200 years of case law and interpretation as an individual right.

You are right, we have 200 years of case law to look at, the problem for you is that a majority of those years say something different than what you think it says.

http://origins.osu.edu/article/second-amendment-goes-court

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman

 

[Knowing]

You are right, we have 200 years of case law to look at, the problem for you is that a majority of those years say something different than what you think it says.

http://origins.osu.edu/article/second-amendment-goes-court

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman

You're going to have to quote from those links so I know what your argument even is. While I'd advocate for an almost unlimited right to firearms I don't think that's the intended meaning of the second amendment.

The Miller decision from your first link concerned people transporting a sawed off shotgun. This per Blacks Law 2ed is not a military weapon and therefore does not fall under that interpretation... exactly the same finding as Miller. While there are legitimate purposes for scatter guns with short barrels I find it highly likely that the defendants were up to no good.

The second link is to Mother Jones and I haven't got time to parse it for your argument.

 

[jackstar7]

That's not very persuasive given that the grammar fully supports over 200 years of case law and interpretation as an individual right.

When was that first case that determined that explicitly? I'm not finding it.

 

[ivwshane]

You're going to have to quote from those links so I know what your argument even is. While I'd advocate for an almost unlimited right to firearms I don't think that's the intended meaning of the second amendment.

The Miller decision from your first link concerned people transporting a sawed off shotgun. This per Blacks Law 2ed is not a military weapon and therefore does not fall under that interpretation... exactly the same finding as Miller. While there are legitimate purposes for scatter guns with short barrels I find it highly likely that the defendants were up to no good.

The second link is to Mother Jones and I haven't got time to parse it for your argument.

Sure thing, I know reading is hard.

The fact that there are two such divergent interpretations is the result of significant changes in how Americans view the 2nd Amendment that occurred during the latter part of the twentieth century. For most of the last century, the meaning of the Second Amendment was not particularly controversial: the courts, legal scholars, politicians, and historians endorsed some version of the collective rights interpretation. As late as 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger described the individual rights view as an intellectual fraud. Yet, the growth of a revisionist individual rights theory of the Second Amendment in the years since Burger made his comment has been nothing short of astonishing.

As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.

Did you also need me to quote you again and explain what the argument was that you made?

 

[Knowing]

When was that first case that determined that explicitly? I'm not finding it.

At least DC v. Heller (2008), then again in McDonald v. Chicago(2010).

It's important to note that you only get a SCOTUS decision when there's a law to challenge.

 

[Knowing]

Sure thing, I know reading is hard.

Mind reading is exceptionally hard.

So are there any citations to go with the claim that "for most of the last century" opinions were had by many?

The "relentless tide" of violence is on the decline and there was no spike when the AWB expired. Given this clearly emotional and hugely biased language I'm struggling to find the fact based argument that the Roberts court was wrong in their interpretation.

Did you also need me to quote you again and explain what the argument was that you made?

Yes, please.

 

[jackstar7]

At least DC v. Heller (2008), then again in McDonald v. Chicago(2010).

It's important to note that you only get a SCOTUS decision when there's a law to challenge.

Yeah. So your 200 years was a bit hyperbolic.

 

[Knowing]

Yeah. So your 200 years was a bit hyperbolic.

Not really. There hadn't been a challenge to a law incongruent with the individual right interpretation that made it to the supreme court. That means that the individual right interpretation was held by enough people that
a) a law incompatible with the interpretation did not exist
or
b) few enough people lived under that law that no one ever violated it, or anyone who did didn't have the backing to take it to the supreme court.

Would you argue that there was no right to an abortion before Roe v. Wade or would you argue that Roe v. Wade formally codified a woman's right to her own body, an opinion that was widely held well before the case went to SCOTUS?

Like I've said several times before, if you have evidence that the Roberts court overturned an earlier decision that found in favor of the one and only collective right in the bill of rights interpretation I'd be thrilled to read it.

 

[ivwshane]

Mind reading is exceptionally hard.

So are there any citations to go with the claim that "for most of the last century" opinions were had by many?

The "relentless tide" of violence is on the decline and there was no spike when the AWB expired. Given this clearly emotional and hugely biased language I'm struggling to find the fact based argument that the Roberts court was wrong in their interpretation.



Yes, please.

Well you have the US v Miller from1939 as the clearest example so that alone already negates your claim.

 

[jackstar7]

Yeah, you win. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Knowing]

Well you have the US v Miller from1939 as the clearest example so that alone already negates your claim.

No, it actually doesn't. It negates a claim that I never made that the supreme court recognizes an unlimited right to all firearms. Since that isn't my argument, my argument isn't negated.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, you win. Enjoy yourself.

No he didn't. There is a reason the Heller case gets so much attention and its not because its ruling was in line with 200 years of previous rulings.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. There hadn't been a challenge to a law incongruent with the individual right interpretation that made it to the supreme court. That means that the individual right interpretation was held by enough people that
a) a law incompatible with the interpretation did not exist
or
b) few enough people lived under that law that no one ever violated it, or anyone who did didn't have the backing to take it to the supreme court.

Would you argue that there was no right to an abortion before Roe v. Wade or would you argue that Roe v. Wade formally codified a woman's right to her own body, an opinion that was widely held well before the case went to SCOTUS?

Like I've said several times before, if you have evidence that the Roberts court overturned an earlier decision that found in favor of the one and only collective right in the bill of rights interpretation I'd be thrilled to read it.

You said the grammar fully supports over 200 years of case law that holds it as an individual right. This is not accurate, as a large amount of case law held it as a collective right. If you meant that the grammar is not inconsistent with 200 years of case law that did not include a SCOTUS opinion denying it as an individual right, this would be accurate. That's a totally, totally different thing though, as if anything the circuit courts and state supreme courts (where most precedents are set) had repeatedly endorsed the collective right model.

So no, what you originally stated was not accurate unless you are cherry picking your cases.

 

[jackstar7]

No he didn't. There is a reason the Heller case gets so much attention and its not because its ruling was in line with 200 years of previous rulings.

I'm surrendering because I have no desire to continue participating. He's tiring and not interested in discussion, just a high-functioning pedant.

I appreciate you guys who want to fight his nonsense harder than I do.

 

[Knowing]

You said the grammar fully supports over 200 years of case law that holds it as an individual right. This is not accurate, as a large amount of case law held it as a collective right. If you meant that the grammar is not inconsistent with 200 years of case law that did not include a SCOTUS opinion denying it as an individual right, this would be accurate. That's a totally, totally different thing though, as if anything the circuit courts and state supreme courts (where most precedents are set) had repeatedly endorsed the collective right model.

So no, what you originally stated was not accurate unless you are cherry picking your cases.

So what you're saying is that the lower courts had opinions that were never challenged in the Supreme Court which is supreme because it alone has the power to interpret the constitution and therefore I'm not considering the opinions of lower courts whose opinions essentially don't matter in a constitutional sense?

Do you apply this thought process when the Supreme Court makes a decision you agree with but that your political rivals disagree with?

 

[ivwshane]

No, it actually doesn't. It negates a claim that I never made that the supreme court recognizes an unlimited right to all firearms. Since that isn't my argument, my argument isn't negated.

You are wrong again but I'm enjoying you make a total ass of yourself. Here is another case for you, presser v Illinois from 1886 of which the supreme court said that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”.



As for US v Miller:

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

[fskimospy]

So what you're saying is that the lower courts had opinions that were never challenged in the Supreme Court which is supreme because it alone has the power to interpret the constitution and therefore I'm not considering the opinions of lower courts whose opinions essentially don't matter in a constitutional sense?

Do you apply this thought process when the Supreme Court makes a decision you agree with but that your political rivals disagree with?

Actually the opinions of the circuit courts matter hugely in a constitutional sense as a great deal of the case law that is used every day comes from them, including law on how the constitution should be interpreted. I have no idea why you would say that circuit court opinions don't matter, as they matter a great deal. SCOTUS generally only steps in when two circuit courts disagree.

I apply this thought process to all SCOTUS decisions, yes. If SCOTUS has spoken on an issue, its opinion is the one that matters. If it hasn't, the circuit courts are the ones that matter. In this case your statement about 200 years of case law interpreting it as an individual right (or not at odds with it as an individual right) was not even remotely correct.

As it stands today the 2nd amendment represents an individual right. In fact I agree that it represents an individual right. Doesn't make what you wrote any less wrong.

 

[Knowing]

If SCOTUS has spoken on an issue, its opinion is the one that matters.

As it stands today the 2nd amendment represents an individual right. In fact I agree that it represents an individual right. Doesn't make what you wrote any less wrong.

Glad we could work that out. So now what's Hillary's problem with giving a simple straightforward answer?

I guess I haven't seen any laws on the books requiring membership in a militant group to purchase or operate firearms that would serve as evidence that the collective right interpretation ever mattered.

 

[ivwshane]

/Facepalm