The 2nd Amendment issue is going to come to a head in the next few years

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

You don't have to agree with the logic. It's relatively clear (though not beyond doubt) that this was the intent of the amendment.

Again, you are stating an opinion, not an argument, when you make conclusive statements such as "it's relatively clear that x is x". And you are entitled to your opinion... just like I certainly don't need your permission to disagree with obviously flawed logic.
You don't need my permission to disagree with flawed logic. Unfortunately, with or without my permission, disagreeing with good logic and substituting your own bad logic is most likely to make you 'wrong'. If you're fine with being demonstrably wrong, go for it!
The American government was not created with the intent of being revolution-proof. It was in fact created with the intent that if the time came, it would fall to a revolution. A very unique and admirable effort, if you ask me.

So you think, but cannot prove. More conclusive statements. This has no bearing on the Second Amendment, anyway.
This is not opinion, unless you believe that the founding fathers and early presidents were only voicing their 'opinion' about how they intended the government that they themselves created to function. This seems a little preposterous.
You'll note that heartsurgeon's rather precise and historically accurate statement does not include support for 'the right to carry any gun anywhere, anytime'. It does not include an unlimited right to keep a loaded shotgun in your living room, nor to shoot through the door when somoen rings the bell. It covers what it covers, and ignores many controversies about gun rights (most of which exist now as a result of larger, deser urban populations), thus leaving these as state issues.

Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.
Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment. As far as 'bearing' arms, it's hard to argue that this right extends universally beyond your own private property, but in some places that right is extended further by state legislation.

Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.
Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, hinges on the use of the word 'people'

No. I believe this is a misconception. All the arguments about a different interpretation of the word "people" being necessary to the collective-rights model are simply wrong. Arguments for the collective-rights model mostly focus on "keep and bear arms" in conjunction with the militia clause.
Sadly, you'd be better sticking to 'people'. It's more convincing. You're trying to combine clauses in a very motivated way to produce an outcome thta you know perfectly well does not fit with the way the world worked 200 years ago.
I think any reasonable person can see that you are reading too much of what you want it to say, and not enough of what it actually says.

I think any reasonable person can see that you're wrong, especially with the way you assume what you set out to prove.

I don't think any reasonable person will conclude that I am wrong, though they may think it is possible that I am wrong. Anything is possible.
 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Great discussion.
Sorry to threadcrap, but...It looks like the two leading candidates for president, Hillary and Rudy, are both in favor of gun control. It's going to be an interesting next couple of years.

I'll probably vote for Bill Richardson or Ron Paul in the primaries.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
All another candidate has to do is tie Giuliani to gun control with a single television ad in Texas and that'll be the end of his run.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.
Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment.

In order for me to be wrong again, I have to be wrong a first time. Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model, and I already indicated that I didn't think it was his intent to support it.

Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.

Your interpretation is a stretch, at best. (My opinion, at least as valid as yours.) I have plenty of agreement, just not by you. However, I am okay with being on the side of the experts and against a few people on Anandtech.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.
Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment.

In order for me to be wrong again, I have to be wrong a first time. Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model, and I already indicated that I didn't think it was his intent to support it.

Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.

Your interpretation is a stretch, at best. (My opinion, at least as valid as yours.) I have plenty of agreement, just not by you. However, I am okay with being on the side of the experts and against a few people on Anandtech.

First, this thread has legs, baby :)

Every time I think it's it dead, up it pops to the top.

I'm interested in your remark:

Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model

So, let's say it's been a "collective right" thing all along; It only pertains to states right to have a militia.

We know, right?, that states did not have standing "armies" such as the National Guard at that time, nor was it envisioned (see my tax stuff just keeps popping up here, back then there was NO income tax. That amendment only came about in 1913. Looong after the drafting of the constitution. When the governement wanted to get all "military and stuff" we had to have special temporary war taxes to fund the effort.)

So, we've got no standing/paid militias. And nobody has a right to personal gun ownership, as such let's say they don't.

Help me envision this. Were the arms to be kept by the state government in storage until such times as a militia needed to called together; then the guns provided by the state to those citizens showing up for duty?

Again, "talk" me through this please.

TIA,

Fern
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.
Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment.

In order for me to be wrong again, I have to be wrong a first time. Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model, and I already indicated that I didn't think it was his intent to support it.

Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.

Your interpretation is a stretch, at best. (My opinion, at least as valid as yours.) I have plenty of agreement, just not by you. However, I am okay with being on the side of the experts and against a few people on Anandtech.

You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).

Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

If you try hard enough, you can rationalize anything.

I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.
Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment.

In order for me to be wrong again, I have to be wrong a first time. Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model, and I already indicated that I didn't think it was his intent to support it.

Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.

Your interpretation is a stretch, at best. (My opinion, at least as valid as yours.) I have plenty of agreement, just not by you. However, I am okay with being on the side of the experts and against a few people on Anandtech.

First, this thread has legs, baby :)

Every time I think it's it dead, up it pops to the top.

I'm interested in your remark:

Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model

So, let's say it's been a "collective right" thing all along; It only pertains to states right to have a militia.

We know, right?, that states did not have standing "armies" such as the National Guard at that time, nor was it envisioned (see my tax stuff just keeps popping up here, back then there was NO income tax. That amendment only came about in 1913. Looong after the drafting of the constitution. When the governement wanted to get all "military and stuff" we had to have special temporary war taxes to fund the effort.)

So, we've got no standing/paid militias. And nobody has a right to personal gun ownership, as such let's say they don't.

Help me envision this. Were the arms to be kept by the state government in storage until such times as a militia needed to called together; then the guns provided by the state to those citizens showing up for duty?

Again, "talk" me through this please.

TIA,

Fern

You are misunderstanding the purpose of the Second Amendment. It has never been explained by anyone as describing a right of the states. I believe I've stated that many times in this thread. It's getting tiresome. I've never said anyone doesn't have an individual right to gun ownership, either.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).

So says 3chordcharlie, Internet expert. You just called all the people who support the collective-rights model intellectually bankrupt, as it is rooted in history. You've made yourself look like an ass and nothing more.

Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

Whatever. You have lost when you cannot mount an argument.

I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

Again, when you result to merely throwing opinions and insults, you are conceding defeat. Thank you.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
[You are misunderstanding the purpose of the Second Amendment. It has never been explained by anyone as describing a right of the states. I believe I've stated that many times in this thread. It's getting tiresome. I've never said anyone doesn't have an individual right to gun ownership, either.

Allow me to explain.

You contsistantly refer to the "collective right"

Here's a appelte court description of said model:

Three Second Amendment Models

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The appeals court majority identified three "models" of the Second Amendment. The first and second both emphasize the preamble, or "purpose" clause, of the Amendment ? the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The third does not.

The first model holds that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia; it is not for individuals' benefit.

The second model is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed.

Under either of the first two models, a private citizen has no right to possess a firearm for personal use. But the court rejected these two models in favor of a third, the individual rights model.

Under this third model, the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech

Under the first two models I think my informal phrasing of it as a "states right" sufficiently summarises it. If you think not, OK.

Then just please state which model you prefer/support as outlined above by the court (or cite a different one if you choose) and kindly have a go at my excercise above (May I suggest you just edit your post above instead of lenghtening this thread further).
----------------------------------------

If you have have not personally stated that individuals don't have the right, OK my mistake. But I was under the impression you were advocating vis-a-vis previously cited court cases that the 2nd was a collective right. Not an individual right, nor both (as I stated I beleive it to be). Hence my remark.

as in

No. The D.C. Circuit could have ruled along the lines of the 9th, in construing the right as a so-called "collective" right. Other circuit decisions have turned also on construction of the same words, as this decision did, just with different results.

thought I would set the record straight on Silveira v. Lockyer, the important Ninth Circuit case adopting the collective-rights model. It relies on clear language from the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Miller, that the language of the Second Amendment applies to state militias:
----------------------------------------

Let's agree to put aside the so-called differences in model 1 & 2. Under either it's going to be a human actually carrying the weapon. And the 2nd model states that only individuals actively serving have the right. I.e., when said individual was at home, he had no right to keep & bears arms according to the 2nd amendment (and as pertains to my excersize above would therefor not have such an arm - it doesn't matter which you refer to, either or both will serve to get this particular discussion where I wish it to go).


TIA

Fern
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).

So says 3chordcharlie, Internet expert. You just called all the people who support the collective-rights model intellectually bankrupt, as it is rooted in history. You've made yourself look like an ass and nothing more.
Sadly, you just look, wrong, which you are.

You're model doesn't stand up to history, it only stands up to what you want it to say.
Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

Whatever. You have lost when you cannot mount an argument.
I don't need another argument, my first one was more than sufficient considering what you've offered.

This isn't a game of who can keep shouting louder or longer: you are wrong, I've shown you why, and you refuse to accept this. So be it.
I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

Again, when you result to merely throwing opinions and insults, you are conceding defeat. Thank you.
If the constitution had been written by gun-control supporting communists in the 1920s, your position would be historically supportable.

If you want to call that conceding defeat, go ahead. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if you had a completely different set of facts to work with, your story might have a hope of being right.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).

So says 3chordcharlie, Internet expert. You just called all the people who support the collective-rights model intellectually bankrupt, as it is rooted in history. You've made yourself look like an ass and nothing more.
Sadly, you just look, wrong, which you are.

You're model doesn't stand up to history, it only stands up to what you want it to say.
Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

Whatever. You have lost when you cannot mount an argument.
I don't need another argument, my first one was more than sufficient considering what you've offered.

This isn't a game of who can keep shouting louder or longer: you are wrong, I've shown you why, and you refuse to accept this. So be it.
I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

Again, when you result to merely throwing opinions and insults, you are conceding defeat. Thank you.
If the constitution had been written by gun-control supporting communists in the 1920s, your position would be historically supportable.

If you want to call that conceding defeat, go ahead. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if you had a completely different set of facts to work with, your story might have a hope of being right.

So basically, instead of showing that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate (which you cannot do), you choose to merely restate the obvious: that you assume you are right.

Since in most of this argumentation your posture has been one of attack, in denying that the collective-rights model is possibly accurate, and since you now offer no further argument, you concede defeat. Sniping just makes you look small.

I'm honestly curious: do you understand that saying things like "your position is unsupportable" is not an argument? An argument requires support. You would have to show that it is unsupportable. Instead all you have done is talk about how your position inherently makes sense. This is a far cry from an argument showing that the collective-rights model does not.

If you can actually prove that the collective-rights model is wrong, come back and see me.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

Can you make an argument?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You would need to be an intellectually bankrupt 'expert' to conclude that the collective rights model is historically accurate. You might get a Supreme Court to decide this, but they would actually be 'legislating from the bench' (unlike most cases, where this is an unfair complaint).

So says 3chordcharlie, Internet expert. You just called all the people who support the collective-rights model intellectually bankrupt, as it is rooted in history. You've made yourself look like an ass and nothing more.
Sadly, you just look, wrong, which you are.

You're model doesn't stand up to history, it only stands up to what you want it to say.
Heartsurgeon's comments are compatible with the collective-rights model, kind of like the Church of the Renaissance declared that the Bible was compatible with all science.

Whatever. You have lost when you cannot mount an argument.
I don't need another argument, my first one was more than sufficient considering what you've offered.

This isn't a game of who can keep shouting louder or longer: you are wrong, I've shown you why, and you refuse to accept this. So be it.
I don't know what your motivation is, but it is certainly not 'correctly interpretting the 2nd amendment', or you would realize how weak your position is, instead of digging your heels in further.

Again, when you result to merely throwing opinions and insults, you are conceding defeat. Thank you.
If the constitution had been written by gun-control supporting communists in the 1920s, your position would be historically supportable.

If you want to call that conceding defeat, go ahead. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if you had a completely different set of facts to work with, your story might have a hope of being right.

So basically, instead of showing that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate (which you cannot do), you choose to merely restate the obvious: that you assume you are right.

Since in most of this argumentation your posture has been one of attack, in denying that the collective-rights model is possibly accurate, and since you now offer no further argument, you concede defeat. Sniping just makes you look small.

If you can actually prove that the collective-rights model is wrong, come back and see me.


Its quite obvious that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate, if there was no private gun ownership there would have been no revolution, and there would have been no way to have a militia.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

Can you make an argument?


All that you have done is told everyone that they are wrong, thats it. You claim that in a time where everyone owned guns, when a revolution was made possible by private gun ownership, that somehow they were not talking about private gun ownership. Your argument makes zero sense. You can point to the courts all that you want, it doesn't make them right. They were wrong about slavery, they are wrong about this.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.


LOL
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
I'm interested in your remark:

Heartsurgeon's comment is perfectly compatible with the collective-rights model

So, let's say it's been a "collective right" thing all along; It only pertains to states right to have a militia.

We know, right?, that states did not have standing "armies" such as the National Guard at that time, nor was it envisioned (see my tax stuff just keeps popping up here, back then there was NO income tax. That amendment only came about in 1913. Looong after the drafting of the constitution. When the governement wanted to get all "military and stuff" we had to have special temporary war taxes to fund the effort.)

So, we've got no standing/paid militias. And nobody has a right to personal gun ownership, as such let's say they don't.

Help me envision this. Were the arms to be kept by the state government in storage until such times as a militia needed to called together; then the guns provided by the state to those citizens showing up for duty?

Again, "talk" me through this please.

TIA,

Fern

There are different flavors of the CRM. In one, people have the right to keep at home arms they were issued by the militia, in order to train and maintain instant readiness. In another, they have the right to own (and keep and bear) arms if they are the member of a militia, although in my opinion this is a little inconsistent. It could work as you say. I think, for someone wishing to discuss the Second Amendment, that it doesn't matter.

You have to remember that no matter what, the language cannot be construed as a restriction. So if you accept for the sake of argument that the collective-rights model is accurate, the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear arms in service to a militia. To "keep" arms is plausibly interpreted as keeping at home, although note that this wouldn't mean that every member of every possible militia would be forced to keep arms at home or anywhere else (Am2 is a safeguard of right(s), not a restriction). Likewise, saying that citizens have the right to bear arms doesn't force them to bear arms in any way. The lack of exact specificity as to the details of the militia means that citizens can bear arms in any type of militia they like. This includes ones that issue arms to citizens in times of need...
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Its quite obvious that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate, if there was no private gun ownership there would have been no revolution, and there would have been no way to have a militia.

JD50, I don't think you are being intentionally dense, but I am stumped as to why you can't understand one particular idea. The fact that there was private gun ownership in those days doesn't mean that the collective-rights model is historically inaccurate. If you like you can say that it makes the individual-rights model accurate, which is not saying the same thing.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

Can you make an argument?


All that you have done is told everyone that they are wrong, thats it.

All I can do is say "you're wrong" when you make such an obviously, stupidly wrong statement. Go read the thread where I make about a bajillion arguments.

You claim that in a time where everyone owned guns, when a revolution was made possible by private gun ownership, that somehow they were not talking about private gun ownership. Your argument makes zero sense.

Just about all you're capable of is repeating that I make zero sense.

You can point to the courts all that you want, it doesn't make them right. They were wrong about slavery, they are wrong about this.

I'm not just pointing to courts. I mention the Supreme Court and other federal courts supporting the CRM mainly in order to show the ridiculousness of an automatic conclusion that any reasonable person must believe in the IRM.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.

Originally posted by: smack Down
You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:eek:
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.

Originally posted by: smack Down
You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:eek:

I guess the idiot is a little confused about how the court works. Maybe you should go look up the term jury nullification, and the go read the constitution and see that there is process for impeaching judges and at the same time look up how the number of Supreme court judges is determined. But I bet that is to complicated for you to understand.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: JD50
6000SUX can you please address Ferns question about how it would have been possible to have a militia without private gun ownership.

I can't believe people are still arguing with the idiot. As the saying goes don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.

Originally posted by: smack Down
You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. I never said they were infallible, but rather that the validity of their constitutional construction is beyond question. They are the wellspring and their construction trumps all, whether anyone likes it or not. It overrides the notions of Congress and the President when it comes to the Constitution, and the notions of you and me.

Again that is not true. A jury can completely ignore anything and everything the court says. Congress can impeach the court for violation the constitution. Congress/President can pack the court with new members to change its position. Lower courts can refuse to obey the high court decisions (effectively making the high court the only court in the land). The president can pardon any person they wish. The Supreme court does not act in a vacuum.

:eek:

I guess the idiot is a little confused about how the court works. May you should go look up the term jury nullification, and the go read the constitution and see that there is process for impeaching judges and at the same time look up how the number of Supreme court judges is determined. But I bet that is to complicated for you to understand.

:roll: Take a class.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Has 6000SUX made an argument other than "La la la, I can't hear you?" If he has, I haven't seen it.

Can you make an argument?


All that you have done is told everyone that they are wrong, thats it.

All I can do is say "you're wrong" when you make such an obviously, stupidly wrong statement. Go read the thread where I make about a bajillion arguments.

You claim that in a time where everyone owned guns, when a revolution was made possible by private gun ownership, that somehow they were not talking about private gun ownership. Your argument makes zero sense.

Just about all you're capable of is repeating that I make zero sense.

You can point to the courts all that you want, it doesn't make them right. They were wrong about slavery, they are wrong about this.

I'm not just pointing to courts. I mention the Supreme Court and other federal courts supporting the CRM mainly in order to show the ridiculousness of an automatic conclusion that any reasonable person must believe in the IRM.

No, you cite the courts because the CRM, has no basis in the text, history, or the framework of the bill of rights. You can't even answer the simple question is why a militia that is created by the federal government needs an amendment to ensure it has the right to keep and bear arms.

All you have is emotions for an argument.