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

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: johnnobts
I loved the movie Red Dawn where the Cubans and Russians invade at the very beginning, and it shows a pickup truck with a bumper sticker saying, "If you want my gun you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand" or something like that. then it shows the guy dead with a gun in his hand and the cuban soldier takes it away...

that's pretty much how most of us southerners feel about the right to bear arms. we'll fight to keep it.

Don't make us come down there and remind you why the North won.

Aw come on...people like johnnobts already have enough holes in their head!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ah, so you have no problems with the government stripping away your rights then do you. Hell, lets just get right to the chase then and implement a dictator type government and throw the BoR right in the trash then.

Maybe some of us actually value our rights.

You are saying you will commit murder if legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S., dare to tell you you're wrong about the meaning of the Bill of Rights. You are one step away from conspiring to commit murder.

You and your rifle have zero chance of guaranteeing my rights. You have a pretty good chance, with your mindset, of going out in a blaze of glory, Waco-style. You have only the haziest notion of what your rights actually are, from reading extremist websites in line with your fringe views.

I'm sorry but I don't need "legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S" to tell me what "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means There can be no honest debate that the intent was that every man could keep and bear arms. There is zero ambiguity.

You're wrong, but there's no need to be sorry about it. It's understandable, with your level of knowledge. However, legal experts agree that these terms are ambiguous. Any time you see a court go into an analysis of such words (called "construction") it is because there is ambiguity. Your understanding, with no legal or historical knowledge and attempting a hasty reading of the plain language of the Constitution merely in order to support your opinion, is a little different from the construction of a court.

You seem to have a serious disconnect about just how valuable your insight is. You may not feel like you need legal experts (judges et al.) to tell you what the Constitution means, but they will tell you nonetheless and it will have an impact on your life.

Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

You make yourself look ridiculous when you call any courts dishonest who dare to disagree with your position. Your argumentation skills are nonexistent; here you are merely making conclusive statements. Again, you may sneer at what courts do every day (which is your right), but they will continue to do it and making decisions binding on you.

 

[palehorse]

Be careful posting on the internet if you are in, or from, DC. After all, Judge Henderson does not believe that the BoR applies to you...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

You make yourself look ridiculous when you call any courts dishonest who dare to disagree with your position. Your argumentation skills are nonexistent; here you are merely making conclusive statements. Again, you may sneer at what courts do every day (which is your right), but they will continue to do it and making decisions binding on you.

LOL, remember, judges used to be lawyers.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Be careful posting on the internet if you are in, or from, DC. After all, Judge Henderson does not believe that the BoR applies to you...

Especially with the Patriot act being abused by the FBI.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

You make yourself look ridiculous when you call any courts dishonest who dare to disagree with your position. Your argumentation skills are nonexistent; here you are merely making conclusive statements. Again, you may sneer at what courts do every day (which is your right), but they will continue to do it and making decisions binding on you.

That is the point no argument is need to support the reading that "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means just what it says. To debate that the 2nd amendment applies to a different set of people then all other times people is used is just ridiculous. There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant. The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Be careful posting on the internet if you are in, or from, DC. After all, Judge Henderson does not believe that the BoR applies to you...

Nor the entire country for that matter. The Government has already been grown big enough to circumvent the constitution. That?s why we need more of it.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
Like I said HONEST argument. People can come up with what ever BS they want to support their position, that doesn't make it an honest argument. When you need thousands of pages of text to try and twist people into the government and explain two sentences that is when they are full of it and have decided an out come and need to justify it.

You make yourself look ridiculous when you call any courts dishonest who dare to disagree with your position. Your argumentation skills are nonexistent; here you are merely making conclusive statements. Again, you may sneer at what courts do every day (which is your right), but they will continue to do it and making decisions binding on you.

That is the point no argument is need to support the reading that "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means just what it says. To debate that the 2nd amendment applies to a different set of people then all other times people is used is just ridiculous. There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant. The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons.

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

There was no debate 200 years ago because states and the federal government did not attempt to restrict individuals from possessing firearms, the court systems were relatively weak, and people brought fewer lawsuits-- it had nothing to do with how powerful the weapons were. It just didn't come up. Like I said before, though, this debate is not new; Miller was decided in the early part of the 20th century, and relied on earlier cases.

 

[smack Down]

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

Acting like a know it all blowhard is getting you nowhere.

READ THE COURT PAPERS

The court *clearly* spelled out its an individual right, NOT a militia or collective right.

So, it is you we are disagreeing with. Because you are disagreeing with the court interpretation.

EDIT
Because your more concerned with trying to impress everyone with your vast knowledge of all things federal, let me save you the time.

From the court case....

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

You haven't presented an argument, all you have done is made repeated and ill informed calls to authority.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

Acting like a know it all blowhard is getting you nowhere.

READ THE COURT PAPERS

The court *clearly* spelled out its an individual right, NOT a militia or collective right.

So, it is you we are disagreeing with. Because you are disagreeing with the court interpretation.

EDIT
Because your more concerned with trying to impress everyone with your vast knowledge of all things federal, let me save you the time.

From the court case....

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Yes, and the court is in the minority, is currently in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's reading, and its ruling affects the entirety of Washington, D.C. You, of all people, should not be doing anything but bowing out of this debate... you originally thought the ruling was from the Fifth Circuit. You're teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs here. I never said that the misguided D.C. Circuit did not rule as it did.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

You didn't quote the whole Second Amendment. I agree, no argument is needed to support a correct reading-- that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in service to a militia. (So quit arguing, then.)

It also gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

... in service to a militia. You don't want to debate over this; you said so yourself.

Thats is odd I never see in service to a militia in the amendment. Are you wearing special glasses that let you see invisible ink?

No, no special glasses. You have repeatedly pwned yourself; that's all that's happening here. Next time, come with a little more knowledge instead of just a dumb attitude. You have zero argumentation ability, you quote things out of context, and deny the power of the highest court in the nation. LOL

It's not me you are really disagreeing with-- it is the majority of federal courts and the Supreme Court you are calling dumbasses. Have a great life! You will never be in a position of responsibility on these matters, unless you change greatly. You will merely continue to beat your head against the wall in places like this.

You haven't presented an argument, all you have done is made repeated and ill informed calls to authority.

May wanna go back and read the thread again. None of my calls to authority was ill-informed... that's funny coming from you. :laugh: The argument is this: the Second Amendment clearly pertains to state militias, as is evidenced by the text itself, evidence of legislative intent, and the more-powerful-than-yours readings by the Supreme Court and the majority of federal courts.

This may help clear things up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You have zero argumentation ability

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You have zero argumentation ability

Some of the better gems from "smack down" in this very thread:

"Odd here when talking about the military the framers use [sic] the word soldiers instead of people." (referring to the Third Amendment, and failing to perceive the difference between soldiers and private citizens, or the military he discusses and militias)

"So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there [sic] own militia and there for [sic] own a gun?"

"So you think the 2nd amendment [sic] was about militia members [sic] benefits package? Of course to use your reading we would have to ignore that the state didn't issue arms for the militia." (fighting a straw man, and factually wrong)

"I'm sorry but I don't need 'legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S' to tell me what 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means " (quoting a portion of the Second Amendment out of context, and flatly denying the authority and function of the Supreme Court in construing the Constitution)

"[N]o argument is need [sic] to support the reading that 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means just what it says. [circular argument quoting out of context] To debate that the 2nd amendment [sic] applies to a different set of people then [sic] all other times people is used [sic] is just ridiculous. [straw man, and lack of understanding of the debate over construction of the term 'people'] There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant [sic]. [no Internet discussion board, with poster 'smack down', existed at that time] The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons. [self-serving conclusive statement with no justification]"

"I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses." (I think this is sarcasm, but it's hard to be sure with the author's mangling of the language. In any event he posted almost the best example possible of a reason why it is ludicrous to suppose that the Constitution includes a right to revolt, one of the supposed justifications for the private individual right to "bear arms".)

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You have zero argumentation ability

Some of the better gems from "smack down" in this very thread:

"Odd here when talking about the military the framers use [sic] the word soldiers instead of people." (referring to the Third Amendment, and failing to perceive the difference between soldiers and private citizens, or the military he discusses and militias)

"So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there [sic] own militia and there for [sic] own a gun?"

"So you think the 2nd amendment [sic] was about militia members [sic] benefits package? Of course to use your reading we would have to ignore that the state didn't issue arms for the militia." (fighting a straw man, and factually wrong)

"I'm sorry but I don't need 'legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S' to tell me what 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means " (quoting a portion of the Second Amendment out of context, and flatly denying the authority and function of the Supreme Court in construing the Constitution)

"[N]o argument is need [sic] to support the reading that 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means just what it says. [circular argument quoting out of context] To debate that the 2nd amendment [sic] applies to a different set of people then [sic] all other times people is used [sic] is just ridiculous. [straw man, and lack of understanding of the debate over construction of the term 'people'] There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant [sic]. [no Internet discussion board, with poster 'smack down', existed at that time] The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons. [self-serving conclusive statement with no justification]"

"I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses." (I think this is sarcasm, but it's hard to be sure with the author's mangling of the language. In any event he posted almost the best example possible of a reason why it is ludicrous to suppose that the Constitution includes a right to revolt, one of the supposed justifications for the private individual right to "bear arms".)

there will always be two interpretations to this single line in the BoR... and people will always disagree on this issue. You consistently dismiss those opposing your viewpoint simply because of your personal evaluation and interpretation of the issue. Therefore, you will view any opposing argumentation as inarticulate.

If your only argument is that those who oppose you are too stupid to argue with you, then one could say the same of you.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You have zero argumentation ability

Some of the better gems from "smack down" in this very thread:

"Odd here when talking about the military the framers use [sic] the word soldiers instead of people." (referring to the Third Amendment, and failing to perceive the difference between soldiers and private citizens, or the military he discusses and militias)

"So can anyone be part of this militia, or create there [sic] own militia and there for [sic] own a gun?"

"So you think the 2nd amendment [sic] was about militia members [sic] benefits package? Of course to use your reading we would have to ignore that the state didn't issue arms for the militia." (fighting a straw man, and factually wrong)

"I'm sorry but I don't need 'legal experts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S' to tell me what 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means " (quoting a portion of the Second Amendment out of context, and flatly denying the authority and function of the Supreme Court in construing the Constitution)

"[N]o argument is need [sic] to support the reading that 'the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means just what it says. [circular argument quoting out of context] To debate that the 2nd amendment [sic] applies to a different set of people then [sic] all other times people is used [sic] is just ridiculous. [straw man, and lack of understanding of the debate over construction of the term 'people'] There was no debate 200 years ago what it meant [sic]. [no Internet discussion board, with poster 'smack down', existed at that time] The debate only appeared because of the increasing power and effectiveness of weapons. [self-serving conclusive statement with no justification]"

"I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses." (I think this is sarcasm, but it's hard to be sure with the author's mangling of the language. In any event he posted almost the best example possible of a reason why it is ludicrous to suppose that the Constitution includes a right to revolt, one of the supposed justifications for the private individual right to "bear arms".)

there will always be two interpretations to this single line in the BoR... and people will always disagree on this issue. You consistently dismiss those opposing your viewpoint simply because your pre-established personal bias on the issue. Therefore, you will view any argumentation, at all, as inarticulate.

If your only argument is that those who oppose you are too stupid to argue with you, then one could say the same of you.

Unfortunately for your post, that's not my only argument. Read the goddamned thread before spouting off. The bulk of this thread has not been about me saying that only one interpretation is possible-- it has been my rejection of ill-considered arguments by 'Specop 007' and 'smack down' that there is only one possible interpretation, and it is the one they prefer, which incidentally is in conflict with the readings of the great majority of federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also, I have a right to point out the extreme lack of knowledge of an opponent. It's not underhanded if it is true; I am merely pointing out the shaky foundation of the assumptions of my opponents. For fvck's sake, Specop started by trumpeting this new decision of the Fifth Circuit. He's so deeply embedded in the gun-rights scene that he didn't know that the Fifth Circuit has recognized an individual right to gun possession for years, and that this new decision is only binding on federal cases in the District of Columbia... :disgust:

You, too, cannot argue if this is the best you can do. You took one phrase of mine out of context and decided that my only argument is that my opponents are stupid, when the whole thread is full of my arguments. You won't win any prizes for logic this way.

 

[smack Down]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

Wrong. Anyone is free to go read the many, many, many arguments I've made that are not appeals to authority, numbskull. You have committed so many errors I'm not going to attempt to list them all, but you can scan up in this very same page and see some of them there.

In addition, you persistently fail to realize that the major function of the Supreme Court is to define what the Constitution means! Referring to the authority of the Supreme Court is as valid as referring to the text of the Constitution itself. In this way, it is a way of obtaining propositional knowledge (and I will point out yet again that the validity of a Constitutional construction made by the Supreme Court is beyond question, and underpins our system of government). In fact, if you knew much about the law, you'd realize that a great bulk of argumentation in the law takes just this form... including in the opinion linked to by the OP, the one favoring your interpretation.

Next time, make an argument instead of a conclusive, incorrect statement, and you will be believable. I will take a moment to easily refute your latest stupid attack, by pointing to just one argument (of the many) that is not just a reference to some sort of authority:

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
...
I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

Wrong. Anyone is free to go read the many, many, many arguments I've made that are not appeals to authority, numbskull. You have committed so many errors I'm not going to attempt to list them all, but you can scan up in this very same page and see some of them there.

In addition, you persistently fail to realize that the major function of the Supreme Court is to define what the Constitution means! Referring to the authority of the Supreme Court is as valid as referring to the text of the Constitution itself. In this way, it is a way of obtaining propositional knowledge (and I will point out yet again that the validity of a Constitutional construction made by the Supreme Court is beyond question, and underpins our system of government). In fact, if you knew much about the law, you'd realize that a great bulk of argumentation in the law takes just this form... including in the opinion linked to by the OP, the one favoring your interpretation.

Next time, make an argument instead of a conclusive, incorrect statement, and you will be believable. I will take a moment to easily refute your latest stupid attack, by pointing to just one argument (of the many) that is not just a reference to some sort of authority:

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
...
I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."

Umm that has nothing to do with gun ownership. Notice how you don't even mention guns in the post.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Is all you have done and is not an argument.

Wrong. Anyone is free to go read the many, many, many arguments I've made that are not appeals to authority, numbskull. You have committed so many errors I'm not going to attempt to list them all, but you can scan up in this very same page and see some of them there.

In addition, you persistently fail to realize that the major function of the Supreme Court is to define what the Constitution means! Referring to the authority of the Supreme Court is as valid as referring to the text of the Constitution itself. In this way, it is a way of obtaining propositional knowledge (and I will point out yet again that the validity of a Constitutional construction made by the Supreme Court is beyond question, and underpins our system of government). In fact, if you knew much about the law, you'd realize that a great bulk of argumentation in the law takes just this form... including in the opinion linked to by the OP, the one favoring your interpretation.

Next time, make an argument instead of a conclusive, incorrect statement, and you will be believable. I will take a moment to easily refute your latest stupid attack, by pointing to just one argument (of the many) that is not just a reference to some sort of authority:

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down
...
I don't see what that has to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion it isn't like you can't put down a rebellion with muskets and horses.

There's a good example, actually. The government did not stand back and permit the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right to revolt. :laugh: And that was when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

From that article: "The military suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wished to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means; otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the peace with force."

Umm that has nothing to do with gun ownership. Notice how you don't even mention guns in the post.

Evasion (and dead wrong, anyway). You are officially pwned. Have a nice life.