Utah sheriffs warn Obama they'll die to defend Second Amendment

[Farang]

By your analogy if SCOTUS said that the Constitution actually meant that guns can be banned at will, then we'd have to take them to the very court that ruled it unlawful. Do you see how asinine this is?

Yes if the SCOTUS rule that it would be the law of the land. Now of course that is a big "if". But our system is not perfect as evidenced in the Dred Scott decision. That was much more consequential than your right to buy an AK-47 and apparently not cause enough for a revolution so I don't expect gun restrictions would be the end of the world either.

Basically if you disagree with SCOTUS about the Constitution your only recourse is to overthrow the government which would also go against the Constitution. The Constitution says 'SCOTUS says what I mean nobody else'

edit: I'm done here. It is a really simple concept that you don't seem to be understanding. This isn't even a disagreement you are just not well educated on the Constitution and its place in our government. Sincere suggestion is that you read, learn, and understand before forming such strong opinions.. I think you are headstrong and its making it more difficult for you to learn things

 

[NoStateofMind]

Yes if the SCOTUS rule that it would be the law of the land. Now of course that is a big "if". But our system is not perfect as evidenced in the Dred Scott decision. That was much more consequential than your right to buy an AK-47 and apparently not cause enough for a revolution so I don't expect gun restrictions would be the end of the world either.

Basically if you disagree with SCOTUS about the Constitution your only recourse is to overthrow the government which would also go against the Constitution. The Constitution says 'SCOTUS says what I mean nobody else'

edit: I'm done here. It is a really simple concept that you don't seem to be understanding. This isn't even a disagreement you are just not well educated on the Constitution and its place in our government. Sincere suggestion is that you read, learn, and understand before forming such strong opinions.. I think you are headstrong and its making it more difficult for you to learn things

Be done then. The simple concept is that the interpretation of the Constitution is PLAIN, meaning anyone can understand it, but when they do overreach by their liberal interpretation it opens a huge can of worms. You don't have to like it, its just the facts babe.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Sorry I don't speak crazy so it's hard to translate your posts sometimes. If you don't feel like clarifying then I guess this conversation is over.

Yeah I guess you can't read. I guess some people would rather dumb themselves down then actually learn anything.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah I guess you can't read. I guess some people would rather dumb themselves down then actually learn anything.

Lol, yep.


/thread end

 

[Brainonska511]

Be done then. The simple concept is that the interpretation of the Constitution is PLAIN, meaning anyone can understand it, but when they do overreach by their liberal interpretation it opens a huge can of worms. You don't have to like it, its just the facts babe.

You're a lunatic. If the meaning was so "PLAIN", we wouldn't have so many problems, would we?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Lol, yep.


/thread end

You have such a strong argument.:thumbsup:

You're a lunatic. If the meaning was so "PLAIN", we wouldn't have so many problems, would we?

Well then maybe you should be on the side of literal interpretation cause any other way you look at it causes abuses of liberty.

For example (again because you probably missed it), liberally interpreting the 1st amendment would imply you cant yell fire in a theater and thats all well and good until that liberal interpretation results in "free speech zones". Then you've crossed the line. So stop the BS and read it like a normal person would. A stop sign means STOP, not "only if someone is looking".

If my drive to protect your right to free speech results in lame ass attacks so be it.

 

[Brainonska511]

You have such a strong argument.:thumbsup:



Well then maybe you should be on the side of literal interpretation cause any other way you look at it causes abuses of liberty.

For example (again because you probably missed it), liberally interpreting the 1st amendment would imply you cant yell fire in a theater and thats all well and good until that liberal interpretation results in "free speech zones". Then you've crossed the line. So stop the BS and read it like a normal person would. A stop sign means STOP, not "only if someone is looking".

If my drive to protect your right to free speech results in lame ass attacks so be it.

You want to start down the literal interpretation road in this thread too?

 

[NoStateofMind]

You want to start down the literal interpretation road in this thread too?

Well its either plain (easy to understand) or its gibberish (in need of interpretation). Right? The argument applies here as well. Unless you have another way of looking at it?

 

[Moonbeam]

By your analogy if SCOTUS said that the Constitution actually meant that guns can be banned at will, then we'd have to take them to the very court that ruled it unlawful. Do you see how asinine this is?

That is exactly what you would have to do and there's nothing asinine about it except in your opinion. But I think you would have to live in a pretty asinine world to think the SC would rule that guns be banned. They did rule that about machine guns, I believe, however.

 

[Pens1566]

I guess someone really did fail Civics.

A++ would read again

 

[Doppel]

What's your background? Is it in constitutional law? No? Then your opinion on what's constitutional or how laws are similar to previously struck down laws is as about as valid as my opinion and my opinion doesn't matter.

Speak for yourself; if you're saying your opinion doesn't matter due to not being a constitutional scholar, I suppose your opinion of my opinion is similarly worthless, as you're not a scholar of Doppel. Your fallacious argument that neither of our opinions matter because lest we are credentialed as constitutional scholars we cannot possibly know anything about it is sad and desperate. One doesn't need to be a physician to know that drinking drano is bad for one's health. Nor one an attorney to know that murder is illegal. Nor have a PhD in physics to accurately understand and explain gravity.

You seem to be arguing the patently absurd, that if the constitution says 1+1=2, SCOTUS has addressed this math in a court case and affirmed that yes 1+1=2, that a law created by some town or state stating that 1+1=3 is valid until another court says it's not.

Enjoy:

http://www.freedom-school.com/699540/from-the-16th-american-jurisprudence.pdf

 

[Farang]

I guess someone really did fail Civics.

A++ would read again

this guy is a paid blogger. There is no other explanation. He probably has 50 browser windows open and just posts this shit everywhere for $10 per hour. Probably a chick actually, like a stay at home mom who responded to a craigslist ad

 

[Brainonska511]

Well its either plain (easy to understand) or its gibberish (in need of interpretation). Right? The argument applies here as well. Unless you have another way of looking at it?

It's not black and white. It's kind of a hazy middle ground and you have to figure out how laws that are crafted fit into that haze or not.

People are going to have different opinions. Instead of belittling them and creating strawman arguments, maybe you should provide evidence for your view as to why the amendments are 'plain as day' and 'easy to understand'.

 

[exdeath]

Lol Obama opened Pandora's box.