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

[jonks]

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 And the trumping amendment isn't final because it too can be repealed.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

I think you left out part of the ONE SENTENCE amendment to suit your interpretation. The large majority of courts hearing the issue have disagreed with your view. SCOTUS will probably find an individual right given it's current conservative composition, but to call it the obvious or right position contradicts decades (centuries?) of debate.

Truth, I think an individual right should exist, and have no problem with the court finding one. I merely object to those who claim it is obvious in the wording of the 2nd or blast those who don't agree as blind. The amendment is anything but crystal clear.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
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.

True, but this is a thread about the law not morality. So IMO he was just nitpicking my words and distracting from the actual topic.

And quite frankly (and at the risk of getting flamed), moral guilt is not something that society can or should count on for enforcement of its laws, as it has 2 major flaws.

The first is the belief that the guilty will actually feel guilt. That they have a conscience. We know this not to be true in many cases, particularly among those persons most likely to commit the most heinous of crimes.
Ask OJ in a (hypothetical) purely frank discussion about whether or not he feels guilt, and he'd probably say he doesn't. That his biggest regret over having committed double murder was how it negatively affected his career and social status (in other words, shame not guilt).
On the extreme side of psychopathic is Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer. When asked what he thought made him different from other people, capable of murdering all those women, his immediate response was "that caring thing." He clearly suffers no moral guilt whatsoever.

The second flaw is the necessity of the perfect eyewitness and judge, namely God, with which to heap guilt upon the guilty. Which is why the notion of moral guilt has always been closely tied to religion. Now, there might be a God out there, but He's not testifying in our courts, and we have no proof that He actually doles out any punishment.

Which leaves us with legal guilt as the only firm objective basis in which society can inflict guilt upon the guilty.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 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).

I'm pointing out the semantic difference between rights and privileges which given past government action can and have been disregarded equally. You can argue privileges may be rightfully suspended while rights can never be, but both have been shunted aside in the past when convenient, so saying something is a right vs a privilege avails you little from inside your underground prison cell, or grave.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Ultimately ALL rights are privilieges because if the government wanted to lock you up they could do so.

That's just a defeatist attitude. I 100% gaurantee you they couldn't lock me up. If you give up before you even try, you're never going to win.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Ultimately ALL rights are privilieges because if the government wanted to lock you up they could do so.

Bullsh!t. You basically just admitted here that you know nothing of political theory. Just because the govt can lock me up AFTER THE FACT for speaking freely does not remove my right to speak freely.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Ultimately ALL rights are privilieges because if the government wanted to lock you up they could do so.

Bullsh!t. You basically just admitted here that you know nothing of political theory. Just because the govt can lock me up AFTER THE FACT for speaking freely does not remove my right to speak freely.

And it relies on the both you and everyone else ALLOWING the government to lock you up.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: halik


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

I think you left out part of the ONE SENTENCE amendment to suit your interpretation. The large majority of courts hearing the issue have disagreed with your view. SCOTUS will probably find an individual right given it's current conservative composition, but to call it the obvious or right position contradicts decades (centuries?) of debate.

Truth, I think an individual right should exist, and have no problem with the court finding one. I merely object to those who claim it is obvious in the wording of the 2nd or blast those who don't agree as blind. The amendment is anything but crystal clear.

You are the one claiming that there is "no such wording" in second amendment as to support individual right to bear arms. Interesting how the wording is identical to the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And so on... are you arguing that none of the amendments grant individual rights?

 

[BansheeX]

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.

There is no confusion, the only confusion is that which is generated by anti-gun advocates. You can question damn near anything. I already made the point earlier, you can infer what the amendment meant by looking at what those who wrote it allowed at the time of its ratification. Could it have been written better? Sure. As could many amendments. But it's preposterous to think that they meant something other than what they themselves allowed simply by attacking the semantics of it.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
There is no confusion, the only confusion is that which is generated by anti-gun advocates. You can question damn near anything. I already made the point earlier, you can infer what the amendment meant by looking at what those who wrote it allowed at the time of its ratification. Could it have been written better? Sure. As could many amendments. But it's preposterous to think that they meant something other than what they themselves allowed simply by attacking the semantics of it.

Nope. Your "position" on this is laughable. The legislative intent is far from clear itself (there wasn't as much in those days), but seems to indicate clearly that the intent of the Second Amendment was to make sure that the states had little to fear from a standing federal army. It's not an attack on the semantics-- it's an attempt to construe the amendment, and you're far in the minority.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BansheeX
There is no confusion, the only confusion is that which is generated by anti-gun advocates. You can question damn near anything. I already made the point earlier, you can infer what the amendment meant by looking at what those who wrote it allowed at the time of its ratification. Could it have been written better? Sure. As could many amendments. But it's preposterous to think that they meant something other than what they themselves allowed simply by attacking the semantics of it.

Nope. Your "position" on this is laughable. The legislative intent is far from clear itself (there wasn't as much in those days), but seems to indicate clearly that the intent of the Second Amendment was to make sure that the states had little to fear from a standing federal army. It's not an attack on the semantics-- it's an attempt to construe the amendment, and you're far in the minority.

Your position is the laughable one. If the "legislative intent" back then was not to allow the people to keep and bear arms, the people wouldn't have had them for the last 200 years.

 

[Train]

I'm gonna laugh when the SC releases its ruling and libs all over the country cry about all thier bans getting overturned.

Long overdue, IMO

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BansheeX
There is no confusion, the only confusion is that which is generated by anti-gun advocates. You can question damn near anything. I already made the point earlier, you can infer what the amendment meant by looking at what those who wrote it allowed at the time of its ratification. Could it have been written better? Sure. As could many amendments. But it's preposterous to think that they meant something other than what they themselves allowed simply by attacking the semantics of it.

Nope. Your "position" on this is laughable. The legislative intent is far from clear itself (there wasn't as much in those days), but seems to indicate clearly that the intent of the Second Amendment was to make sure that the states had little to fear from a standing federal army. It's not an attack on the semantics-- it's an attempt to construe the amendment, and you're far in the minority.

Your position is the laughable one. If the "legislative intent" back then was not to allow the people to keep and bear arms, the people wouldn't have had them for the last 200 years.

Wrong. The people have done many things not protected by the Constitution for a long time. My comment really couldn't have been more correct-- BansheeX, slavering at the mouth, asserted that the only confusion about the Second Amendment is somehow manufactured by anti-gun advocates. ROFLMAO

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Train
I'm gonna laugh when the SC releases its ruling and libs all over the country cry about all thier bans getting overturned.

Long overdue, IMO

Actually, the Supreme Court may well find that the Second Amendment describes a private right of ownership, but that it leaves plenty of room for gun bans, like the DC ban, for starters.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: BansheeX
There is no confusion, the only confusion is that which is generated by anti-gun advocates. You can question damn near anything. I already made the point earlier, you can infer what the amendment meant by looking at what those who wrote it allowed at the time of its ratification. Could it have been written better? Sure. As could many amendments. But it's preposterous to think that they meant something other than what they themselves allowed simply by attacking the semantics of it.

Nope. Your "position" on this is laughable. The legislative intent is far from clear itself (there wasn't as much in those days), but seems to indicate clearly that the intent of the Second Amendment was to make sure that the states had little to fear from a standing federal army. It's not an attack on the semantics-- it's an attempt to construe the amendment, and you're far in the minority.

Your position is the laughable one. If the "legislative intent" back then was not to allow the people to keep and bear arms, the people wouldn't have had them for the last 200 years.

Wrong. The people have done many things not protected by the Constitution for a long time. My comment really couldn't have been more correct-- BansheeX, slavering at the mouth, asserted that the only confusion about the Second Amendment is somehow manufactured by anti-gun advocates. ROFLMAO

The confusion is only in your head. Really, put down the crack pipe and look at history. The people always have and always will own guns. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The confusion is only in your head. Really, put down the crack pipe and look at history. The people always have and always will own guns. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.

No. Put down the acid tabs, and realize that your minority viewpoint is merely wishful thinking. No amount of historical behavior necessarily means that a "right" exists in the Constitution.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Train
I'm gonna laugh when the SC releases its ruling and libs all over the country cry about all thier bans getting overturned.

Long overdue, IMO

Actually, the Supreme Court may well find that the Second Amendment describes a private right of ownership, but that it leaves plenty of room for gun bans, like the DC ban, for starters.

You missed this part: "shall not be infringed."

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Train
I'm gonna laugh when the SC releases its ruling and libs all over the country cry about all thier bans getting overturned.

Long overdue, IMO

Actually, the Supreme Court may well find that the Second Amendment describes a private right of ownership, but that it leaves plenty of room for gun bans, like the DC ban, for starters.

You missed this part: "shall not be infringed."

Nope, not at all.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The confusion is only in your head. Really, put down the crack pipe and look at history. The people always have and always will own guns. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.

No. Put down the acid tabs, and realize that your minority viewpoint is merely wishful thinking. No amount of historical behavior necessarily means that a "right" exists in the Constitution.

Your more confused then I first suspected.... in fact your downright delusional. We're talking about a specific right granted in the Bill of Rights and a 200 year precedent showing what the intent of those words are.

Like I said, it is your view that is laughable.

 

[Nebor]

I don't know why you guys bother arguing with Punchkin. He's proven time and again that he's irrational, and simply flips out when someone presents him with a flaw in his argument.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The confusion is only in your head. Really, put down the crack pipe and look at history. The people always have and always will own guns. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.

No. Put down the acid tabs, and realize that your minority viewpoint is merely wishful thinking. No amount of historical behavior necessarily means that a "right" exists in the Constitution.

Your more confused then I first suspected.... in fact your downright delusional. We're talking about a specific right granted in the Bill of Rights and a 200 year precedent showing what the intent of those words are.

Like I said, it is your view that is laughable.

Um, nope. Your "view" is not even well-informed, so doesn't really exist as an arguable one. You are assuming what you set out to prove. We're talking about one ill-informed AT poster's (that's you!) "viewpoint" and wishful thinking on what is in the Second Amendment. Centuries of gun ownership is not "precedent" on this.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't know why you guys bother arguing with Punchkin. He's proven time and again that he's irrational, and simply flips out when someone presents him with a flaw in his argument.

No, Nebor. That's even more stupid than I expect from you, although I expect gun wack-jobs to support each other on the Internet.

 

[freegeeks]

I have a question. First of all it has nothing to do with gun ownership because because gun ownership in the USA does not affect me at all because I'm not living in the USA, for my part you can have a bazooka
Let's say that the Bill of Rights also states that women can not vote and blacks are just there to exist as slaves, would you defend this because the Bill of Rights said so? Just a question because I see a lot of arguments in these debates that come down to "because it is in the bill of rights"

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The confusion is only in your head. Really, put down the crack pipe and look at history. The people always have and always will own guns. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.

No. Put down the acid tabs, and realize that your minority viewpoint is merely wishful thinking. No amount of historical behavior necessarily means that a "right" exists in the Constitution.

Your more confused then I first suspected.... in fact your downright delusional. We're talking about a specific right granted in the Bill of Rights and a 200 year precedent showing what the intent of those words are.

Like I said, it is your view that is laughable.

I agree...punchkin is either delusional or a troll trying to get a rise. Is there an ignore list somewhere?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I have a question. First of all it has nothing to do with gun ownership because because gun ownership in the USA does not affect me at all because I'm not living in the USA, for my part you can have a bazooka
Let's say that the Bill of Rights also states that women can not vote and blacks are just there to exist as slaves, would you defend this because the Bill of Rights said so? Just a question because I see a lot of arguments in these debates that come down to "because it is in the bill of rights"

Thats why there's something called amendments.

Though not explicitly stated, there was a time when blacks and women couldnt vote, this was the interpretation of the time. An amendment was passed to clarify that there was to be no discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.

An amendment requires a lot more legislative approval than simple congressional acts.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The confusion is only in your head. Really, put down the crack pipe and look at history. The people always have and always will own guns. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.

No. Put down the acid tabs, and realize that your minority viewpoint is merely wishful thinking. No amount of historical behavior necessarily means that a "right" exists in the Constitution.

Your more confused then I first suspected.... in fact your downright delusional. We're talking about a specific right granted in the Bill of Rights and a 200 year precedent showing what the intent of those words are.

Like I said, it is your view that is laughable.

Um, nope. Your "view" is not even well-informed, so doesn't really exist as an arguable one. You are assuming what you set out to prove. We're talking about one ill-informed AT poster's (that's you!) "viewpoint" and wishful thinking on what is in the Second Amendment. Centuries of gun ownership is not "precedent" on this.

Uh-huh, if you say so.










:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: