U.S. Supreme Court on 2nd Amendment Started today

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: punchkin
Just to be correct on another point, you're not actually innocent until proven guilty; you're presumed to be so. If you're guilty, you're guilty. If you commit a crime, you're guilty at that moment.

/forehead guy

Don't beat yourself up about it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: punchkin
Just to be correct on another point, you're not actually innocent until proven guilty; you're presumed to be so. If you're guilty, you're guilty. If you commit a crime, you're guilty at that moment.

/forehead guy

punchkin has the fantasy ability to go back in time so that criminals can be guilty at the exact moment of their commission of the crime while simultaneously allowing for their presumption of innocence until actually found guilty by conviction in a court of law.
This creates a bit of a paradox in the space-time continuum, until he passed a new law making that illegal.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: punchkin
Just to be correct on another point, you're not actually innocent until proven guilty; you're presumed to be so. If you're guilty, you're guilty. If you commit a crime, you're guilty at that moment.

/forehead guy

punchkin has the fantasy ability to go back in time so that criminals can be guilty at the exact moment of their commission of the crime while simultaneously allowing for their presumption of innocence until actually found guilty by conviction in a court of law.
This creates a bit of a paradox in the space-time continuum, until he passed a new law making that illegal.

So you still don't actually understand. It's sad, but expected. Or is it that you're just intellectually dishonest, as in every single thread you deface?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: punchkin
Just to be correct on another point, you're not actually innocent until proven guilty; you're presumed to be so. If you're guilty, you're guilty. If you commit a crime, you're guilty at that moment.

/forehead guy

punchkin has the fantasy ability to go back in time so that criminals can be guilty at the exact moment of their commission of the crime while simultaneously allowing for their presumption of innocence until actually found guilty by conviction in a court of law.
This creates a bit of a paradox in the space-time continuum, until he passed a new law making that illegal.

So you still don't actually understand. It's sad, but expected. Or is it that you're just intellectually dishonest, as in every single thread you deface?

Ok, I'll play the idiot (if I'm not already). Please Give us an example regarding the methods you propose. I'll be waiting.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin



You appear to have a self-defecating sense of humor, Vic. Enjoy your self-pwnage, for the umpteenth time.

Except that, for the umpteenth time, you haven't pwned me, except in your imagination.

Pwnage is kind of like Godwin's law. It has to be called by a 3rd party. If you claim your own act of pwnage against someone else, then you have in fact only pwned yourself. I think someone forget to teach you this because the rest of us have enough understanding of human nature to be able to figure it out for ourselves.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy
I see the Court going against the 2nd Amendment.

i see it the start of a legal way to get guns out of the hands the people. it will start in DC. spread to other states. Then it they will outlaw rifle's eventually.

I give it 15-30 years and all guns will be outlawed.

I don't think it's possible for the Supreme Court to "go against" the Second Amendment, since they're the ones whose job it is to define its legal meaning for us. It is, of course, possible for them to define it in a way that some people don't like. It will be interesting to read the reasoning behind the holding, either way-- it seems almost incredible that a textualist could really argue that the words "keep and bear", especially with the presence of the militia clause, really mean "own".

i also didnt think it was possible for the courts to decide its ok to take away privatly owned property and give it to a privatly owned business for profit. but the courts have decided thats ok.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: waggy
I see the Court going against the 2nd Amendment.

i see it the start of a legal way to get guns out of the hands the people. it will start in DC. spread to other states. Then it they will outlaw rifle's eventually.

I give it 15-30 years and all guns will be outlawed.

All indications point to SCOTUS upholding an individual right.

Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place. Even previously staunch anti-gun politicians (like Obama) no longer see the gun banning agenda as "politically feasible."

So I don't see your slippery slope, leading to all guns be outlawed, as likely. And even if guns were outlawed, it wouldn't have any effect on actual gun ownership in America, and most Americans know this.
People are coming back around to the liberal realization that you just can't legislate that pi equals 3.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: waggy
I see the Court going against the 2nd Amendment.

i see it the start of a legal way to get guns out of the hands the people. it will start in DC. spread to other states. Then it they will outlaw rifle's eventually.

I give it 15-30 years and all guns will be outlawed.

All indications point to SCOTUS upholding an individual right.

Gun grabbing is an agenda whose time has come and gone. Those countries that have tried it have found it to be unsuccessful. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-gun rights (65% in a recent CNN poll), although there is rational concern that reasonable regulation be in place. Even previously staunch anti-gun politicians (like Obama) no longer see the gun banning agenda as "politically feasible."

So I don't see your slippery slope, leading to all guns be outlawed, as likely. And even if guns were outlawed, it wouldn't have any effect on actual gun ownership in America, and most Americans know this.
People are coming back around to the liberal realization that you just can't legislate that pi equals 3.

you don't think they will continue to try? i may be wrong (hopefully i am) but i will not be shocked it happens.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: waggy
I give it 15-30 years and all guns will be outlawed.

Who wants to be an outlaw with me?

 

[BansheeX]

This is the most ridiculous god damn thing I've ever heard this year. There is no confusion with the second amendment, and you CANNOT rule against rights. Rights are inalienable, they're not privileges that can be granted or taken away by a document, court, or anything else. The idea that they're "not sure" if it only applies for militia is absurd. Why don't you look at who was allowed to carry guns back when it was written? It's obvious what the forefathers meant simply by what they themselves allowed at the time of the constitution's ratification. There's your clarification. Holy stupid, batman. We need to all move to Montana and secede.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: waggy
I see the Court going against the 2nd Amendment.

i see it the start of a legal way to get guns out of the hands the people. it will start in DC. spread to other states. Then it they will outlaw rifle's eventually.

I give it 15-30 years and all guns will be outlawed.

I don't think it's possible for the Supreme Court to "go against" the Second Amendment, since they're the ones whose job it is to define its legal meaning for us. It is, of course, possible for them to define it in a way that some people don't like. It will be interesting to read the reasoning behind the holding, either way-- it seems almost incredible that a textualist could really argue that the words "keep and bear", especially with the presence of the militia clause, really mean "own".

Do you know anything about the military? When I was in the Army, I wasn't allowed to keep and bear anything. My rifle was locked up in the armory until I was allowed to check it out.

If one is not allowed to own a weapon, how do you expect them to keep and bear it? Wallet sized photos to show people what they would have access to if the government said it was alright?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: waggy
I give it 15-30 years and all guns will be outlawed.

Who wants to be an outlaw with me?

I'm your huckleberry...

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: punchkin
It will be interesting to read the reasoning behind the holding, either way-- it seems almost incredible that a textualist could really argue that the words "keep and bear", especially with the presence of the militia clause, really mean "own".

Do you know anything about the military? When I was in the Army, I wasn't allowed to keep and bear anything. My rifle was locked up in the armory until I was allowed to check it out.

If one is not allowed to own a weapon, how do you expect them to keep and bear it? Wallet sized photos to show people what they would have access to if the government said it was alright?

This is one of the big problems for a strict textual approach to the Second Amendment that nevertheless claims that it guarantees a private right of gun ownership.

The Second Amendment does not apply in the same way to members of the Army (of which I was also a member, incidentally).

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: punchkin
Just to be correct on another point, you're not actually innocent until proven guilty; you're presumed to be so. If you're guilty, you're guilty. If you commit a crime, you're guilty at that moment.

...

Ok, I'll play the idiot (if I'm not already). Please Give us an example regarding the methods you propose. I'll be waiting.

I don't think I was proposing a method for anything with this comment. It stemmed from a comment by Vic that terrorists were criminals, then IIRC someone jumped in to tell him he was wrong. He was right-- terrorists are criminals, whether they're brought to trial or not. The trial would be to prove that they're criminals so they can be punished. On a related matter, you're guilty at the exact moment you commit a crime. The criminal justice system exists to detect and punish the guilty, not to turn the innocent into the guilty based on the evidence.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
This is the most ridiculous god damn thing I've ever heard this year. There is no confusion with the second amendment, and you CANNOT rule against rights. Rights are inalienable, they're not privileges that can be granted or taken away by a document, court, or anything else. The idea that they're "not sure" if it only applies for militia is absurd. Why don't you look at who was allowed to carry guns back when it was written? It's obvious what the forefathers meant simply by what they themselves allowed at the time of the constitution's ratification. There's your clarification. Holy stupid, batman. We need to all move to Montana and secede.

There's a great deal of confusion surrounding the Second Amendment. Courts can be wrong, and right now gun-rights advocates would say that many courts have ruled incorrectly on this issue. We won't know until the Supreme Court decides the issue who was really right.

 

[manowar821]

This country is a shit-storm, just like every other nation. Ugh.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: manowar821
This country is a shit-storm, just like every other nation. Ugh.

Hopefully the SCOTUS is about to, um, wipe some of that out.

 

[TallBill]

All other points aside, I was fascinated to listen to the audio of the debate.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: punchkin
Just to be correct on another point, you're not actually innocent until proven guilty; you're presumed to be so. If you're guilty, you're guilty. If you commit a crime, you're guilty at that moment.

/forehead guy

punchkin has the fantasy ability to go back in time so that criminals can be guilty at the exact moment of their commission of the crime while simultaneously allowing for their presumption of innocence until actually found guilty by conviction in a court of law.
This creates a bit of a paradox in the space-time continuum, until he passed a new law making that illegal.

So you still don't actually understand. It's sad, but expected. Or is it that you're just intellectually dishonest, as in every single thread you deface?

Ok, I'll play the idiot (if I'm not already). Please Give us an example regarding the methods you propose. I'll be waiting.

Punchkin's merely talking about the difference between moral and legal guilt. Moral guilt attaches upon completion of the act - if I were to come into your house and shot you w/o cause, I'd be morally guilty of your murder. Legally, however, I'd still be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. If I beat the rap, I'd be legally innocent but not morally innocent. Because innocence/guilt is essentially a moral issue (which the law attempts to mirror, but doesn't always do so - see OJ), punchkin's right that the proper way to state the theory is, "under U.S. law, you are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty", not "you are innocent until you are proven guilty." If I murdered someone, I am not innocent, regardless of what the verdict is in court.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: TallBill
All other points aside, I was fascinated to listen to the audio of the debate.

I guess it's up on their site? What format? You're probably right - bet it's a fascinating argument.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BansheeX
This is the most ridiculous god damn thing I've ever heard this year. There is no confusion with the second amendment, and you CANNOT rule against rights. Rights are inalienable, they're not privileges that can be granted or taken away by a document, court, or anything else. The idea that they're "not sure" if it only applies for militia is absurd. Why don't you look at who was allowed to carry guns back when it was written? It's obvious what the forefathers meant simply by what they themselves allowed at the time of the constitution's ratification. There's your clarification. Holy stupid, batman. We need to all move to Montana and secede.

There's a great deal of confusion surrounding the Second Amendment. Courts can be wrong, and right now gun-rights advocates would say that many courts have ruled incorrectly on this issue. We won't know until the Supreme Court decides the issue who was really right.

Like most issues that reach SCOTUS, this isn't about right or wrong. Else they could never overturn their own conclusions, or have their decisions trumped by an amendment. And the trumping amendment isn't final because it too can be repealed. There is no final arbiter of "right", there is only "best we can do right now."

And BansheeX, if you think certain rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, what exactly happened to the japanese american citizens locked up with zero due process during WWII? Ultimately ALL rights are privilieges because if the government wanted to lock you up they could do so. As to your "obvious intent" argument, go back and read some of the notes from members of the continental congress and letters between them debating the amendments, and perhaps you'll find things a little more grey than black and white.

I do think it's interesting that the anti-judicial-activist conservative court will likely "find" an individual right to gun ownership despite no such wording in the amendment. Funny how one man's constitutional interpretation is another man's original intent.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

And BansheeX, if you think certain rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, what exactly happened to the japanese american citizens locked up with zero due process during WWII? Ultimately ALL rights are privilieges because if the government wanted to lock you up they could do so.

All rights are NOT privileges. You're confusing can and should. Do you have a basic right (NOT privilege) to life? I'd say yes. Can I take it away (as a practical matter)? Why yes I can - I own guns, it would be easy enough to do. Should I take it away (morally speaking)? No, or at least not without just cause (like self-defense).

As to your "obvious intent" argument, go back and read some of the notes from members of the continental congress and letters between them debating the amendments, and perhaps you'll find things a little more grey than black and white.

Simply put, legislative history/intent arguments are generally garbage. If authors of laws/regs can't be bothered to be sufficiently clear in crafting their text, I'm just going to go with the reading I like best. Intent should be obvious in every law, because the legislative history is generally a mess.

I do think it's interesting that the anti-judicial-activist conservative court will likely "find" an individual right to gun ownership despite no such wording in the amendment. Funny how one man's constitutional interpretation is another man's original intent.

That's just so illogical, it's bizarre you even said it.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: TallBill
All other points aside, I was fascinated to listen to the audio of the debate.

I guess it's up on their site? What format? You're probably right - bet it's a fascinating argument.

I'm not sure where you can listen to it now. I listened to it live on CNN.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BansheeX
This is the most ridiculous god damn thing I've ever heard this year. There is no confusion with the second amendment, and you CANNOT rule against rights. Rights are inalienable, they're not privileges that can be granted or taken away by a document, court, or anything else. The idea that they're "not sure" if it only applies for militia is absurd. Why don't you look at who was allowed to carry guns back when it was written? It's obvious what the forefathers meant simply by what they themselves allowed at the time of the constitution's ratification. There's your clarification. Holy stupid, batman. We need to all move to Montana and secede.

There's a great deal of confusion surrounding the Second Amendment. Courts can be wrong, and right now gun-rights advocates would say that many courts have ruled incorrectly on this issue. We won't know until the Supreme Court decides the issue who was really right.

Like most issues that reach SCOTUS, this isn't about right or wrong. Else they could never overturn their own conclusions, or have their decisions trumped by an amendment. And the trumping amendment isn't final because it too can be repealed. There is no final arbiter of "right", there is only "best we can do right now."

And BansheeX, if you think certain rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, what exactly happened to the japanese american citizens locked up with zero due process during WWII? Ultimately ALL rights are privilieges because if the government wanted to lock you up they could do so. As to your "obvious intent" argument, go back and read some of the notes from members of the continental congress and letters between them debating the amendments, and perhaps you'll find things a little more grey than black and white.

I do think it's interesting that the anti-judicial-activist conservative court will likely "find" an individual right to gun ownership despite no such wording in the amendment. Funny how one man's constitutional interpretation is another man's original intent.

Ummm... you may want to re-read the ammendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BansheeX
This is the most ridiculous god damn thing I've ever heard this year. There is no confusion with the second amendment, and you CANNOT rule against rights. Rights are inalienable, they're not privileges that can be granted or taken away by a document, court, or anything else. The idea that they're "not sure" if it only applies for militia is absurd. Why don't you look at who was allowed to carry guns back when it was written? It's obvious what the forefathers meant simply by what they themselves allowed at the time of the constitution's ratification. There's your clarification. Holy stupid, batman. We need to all move to Montana and secede.

There's a great deal of confusion surrounding the Second Amendment. Courts can be wrong, and right now gun-rights advocates would say that many courts have ruled incorrectly on this issue. We won't know until the Supreme Court decides the issue who was really right.

Like most issues that reach SCOTUS, this isn't about right or wrong. Else they could never overturn their own conclusions, or have their decisions trumped by an amendment. And the trumping amendment isn't final because it too can be repealed. There is no final arbiter of "right", there is only "best we can do right now."

And BansheeX, if you think certain rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, what exactly happened to the japanese american citizens locked up with zero due process during WWII? Ultimately ALL rights are privilieges because if the government wanted to lock you up they could do so. As to your "obvious intent" argument, go back and read some of the notes from members of the continental congress and letters between them debating the amendments, and perhaps you'll find things a little more grey than black and white.

I do think it's interesting that the anti-judicial-activist conservative court will likely "find" an individual right to gun ownership despite no such wording in the amendment. Funny how one man's constitutional interpretation is another man's original intent.

Ummm... you may want to re-read the ammendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

Dude, clearly it's a collective right, just like all the others in the bill of rights. That's why you can't say whatever you want, but your PAC can. And you're not free from unreasonable search and seizure, but your commune is! Communal rights!