Justice Breyer, you are a damned liar.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
See my earlier response. In the meantime, here's how your problem was addressed over a century ago:


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...9&pagewanted=1
Click to expand...


Toki Wartooth said:
Yes, clearly editorials bear the same, if not greater weight, than original documentation and legal precedent and intent from the founders.
Click to expand...

Yes, clearly YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE, so you're just blowing smoke.

Stop and think, Toki....your superficial criticism is that the article is a century later and therefore is incapable of analyzing the intent of the founders....yet here YOU are THREE centuries later doing the same...and somehow YOUR personal assertions take precedent? Evidently, you are personally exempt from the standards you set for others.....aka, hypocrisy. :palm:
 
Cluttering up, with ambiguous bullshit, and trying to confuse the issue of the rights given by second amendment won't buy you a bucket of spit....

Long winded definitions and explanations of what the "militia", or "well regulated militia" is, mean little in determining what the second amendment demands.....
The words, "the right of the people" is what drives the entire debate and makes the rest of the words pale in importance.....THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE....
And identifying who comprises "the people" is paramount.....and their is no doubt, WE are the people.

..and the rest.....?
Its very plain what the right is....and governments inability to abolish that right. The right of we the people.

A right that has stood for 220 years and is well established.....as any gun owner knows.
 
bravo said:
Cluttering up, with ambiguous bullshit, and trying to confuse the issue of the rights given by second amendment won't buy you a bucket of spit....

Long winded definitions and explanations of what the "militia", or "well regulated militia" is, mean little in determining what the second amendment demands.....
The words, "the right of the people" is what drives the entire debate and makes the rest of the words pale in importance.....THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE....
And identifying who comprises "the people" is paramount.....and their is no doubt, WE are the people.

..and the rest.....?
Its very plain what the right is....and governments inability to abolish that right. The right of we the people.

A right that has stood for 220 years and is well established.....as any gun owner knows.
Click to expand...

:palm: Once again Bravo demonstrates his time honored ability to just blather on as to how his personal opinion, supposition and conjecture of PARTS of a paragraph/law, etc., supercedes rational analysis of ALL the information provided.

Pity the chronology of the posts will always expose this mentally impotent Bravo for the fool that he is. Posts #38 & #39 explains it all, folks. Bravo is just to damned ignorant and stubborn to understand this. Now, let's watch Bravo rant and fume as he repeats his dreck here with an added helping of Bravo lies and distortion. Or maybe we'll get a famous Bravo childish one liner retort and he'll go away (one can only hope).
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Once again Bravo demonstrates his time honored ability to just blather on as to how his personal opinion, supposition and conjecture of PARTS of a paragraph/law, etc., supercedes rational analysis of ALL the information provided.

Pity the chronology of the posts will always expose this mentally impotent Bravo for the fool that he is. Posts #38 & #39 explains it all, folks. Bravo is just to damned ignorant and stubborn to understand this. Now, let's watch Bravo rant and fume as he repeats his dreck here with an added helping of Bravo lies and distortion. Or maybe we'll get a famous Bravo childish one liner retort and he'll go away (one can only hope).
Click to expand...


heh heh heh heh
you said "chronology".
heh heh heh heh
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, this is about all you're good for....cheerleading fellow idiot neocon parrots. Carry on.
Click to expand...



Damn Yankee said:
Well, well, look who's responded to my post: our resident Obamabot. :)
Click to expand...

Oh, so you just wanted my attention. Stands to reason, since Damn Yankee can't debate an issue worth a damn.

Someone clue in the little stupe DY....I started at least two threads criticizing Obama on this forum, and will continue to criticize him when necessary.

Damn Yankee just can't handle how I schooled his fellow idiot neocon parrots on the subject matter of this particular thread. So let's watch this damn Fool Yankee do everything BUT rationally and logically debate the issue with me.
 
First off, what people like Tachi seem to ignore is that the right to keep and bear arms was not CREATED. A simple reading of the 2nd amendment makes that clear.

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.
Click to expand...
The Framers viewed standing armies to be one of the greatest risks to a free people. They saw local militias as the best means to protect against that risk. To insure that every state could have a local militia, the founders insured that the right to keep and bear arms could never be infringed. It does not say the right of militia members shall not be infringed. It says "THE PEOPLE". So now, I will ask Tachi directly, what is the difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" in the first, fourth and ninth?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

"The People" in all of those refer to citizens of the United States. Both collectively AND individually. Any attempt by the government to censure me alone, or ALL of us on this board BOTH violate the first amendment as we all have a first amendment right both as individuals and collectively.

All of us have the right to be free from an illegal search, both in our individual homes, and in the case of roommates, to our individually controlled rooms in an apartment we share with others. Even if one roommate consents to the police entering commonly controlled areas of the apartment the police cannot extend that consent to individual rooms.

As I have pointed out, one of the best defenses of the 2nd amendment right being an individual right comes from a lefty, Lawrence Tribe.

[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.
(Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000] [emphasis added].
Click to expand...
From BRIEF SUPPORTING APPELLEE OF AMICUS CURIAE ACADEMICS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT on page three of the brief and footnoted in the brief at 2.

So, I reiterate my challenge. SHOW ME the difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" in the first, fourth and ninth.
 
Socrtease said:
First off, what people like Tachi seem to ignore is that the right to keep and bear arms was not CREATED. A simple reading of the 2nd amendment makes that clear.

The Framers viewed standing armies to be one of the greatest risks to a free people. They saw local militias as the best means to protect against that risk. To insure that every state could have a local militia, the founders insured that the right to keep and bear arms could never be infringed. It does not say the right of militia members shall not be infringed. It says "THE PEOPLE". So now, I will ask Tachi directly, what is the difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" in the first, fourth and ninth?







"The People" in all of those refer to citizens of the United States. Both collectively AND individually. Any attempt by the government to censure me alone, or ALL of us on this board BOTH violate the first amendment as we all have a first amendment right both as individuals and collectively.

All of us have the right to be free from an illegal search, both in our individual homes, and in the case of roommates, to our individually controlled rooms in an apartment we share with others. Even if one roommate consents to the police entering commonly controlled areas of the apartment the police cannot extend that consent to individual rooms.

As I have pointed out, one of the best defenses of the 2nd amendment right being an individual right comes from a lefty, Lawrence Tribe.

From BRIEF SUPPORTING APPELLEE OF AMICUS CURIAE ACADEMICS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT on page three of the brief and footnoted in the brief at 2.

So, I reiterate my challenge. SHOW ME the difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" in the first, fourth and ninth.
Click to expand...


So how is discrimination against white men constitutional, but discrimination against non-whites and women is unconstitutional?
 
Socrtease said:
First off, what people like Tachi seem to ignore is that the right to keep and bear arms was not CREATED. A simple reading of the 2nd amendment makes that clear.

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.
Click to expand...


The Framers viewed standing armies to be one of the greatest risks to a free people. They saw local militias as the best means to protect against that risk. To insure that every state could have a local militia, the founders insured that the right to keep and bear arms could never be infringed. It does not say the right of militia members shall not be infringed. It says "THE PEOPLE". So now, I will ask Tachi directly, what is the difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" in the first, fourth and ninth?

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

"The People" in all of those refer to citizens of the United States. Both collectively AND individually. Any attempt by the government to censure me alone, or ALL of us on this board BOTH violate the first amendment as we all have a first amendment right both as individuals and collectively.

All of us have the right to be free from an illegal search, both in our individual homes, and in the case of roommates, to our individually controlled rooms in an apartment we share with others. Even if one roommate consents to the police entering commonly controlled areas of the apartment the police cannot extend that consent to individual rooms.

As I have pointed out, one of the best defenses of the 2nd amendment right being an individual right comes from a lefty, Lawrence Tribe.

[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.
(Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000] [emphasis added].
Click to expand...

From BRIEF SUPPORTING APPELLEE OF AMICUS CURIAE ACADEMICS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT on page three of the brief and footnoted in the brief at 2.

So, I reiterate my challenge. SHOW ME the difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" in the first, fourth and ninth.
Click to expand...

You demonstrate the reading comprehension problem that is indicative of all gunners when it comes to the Second Amendment. I never implied in any way, shape or form what you are asserting. A simple reading makes it clear that in order to maintain a militia, it's members (the people) have the right to bear arms. NOTHING there states that ALL citizens are AUTOMATICALLY part of a militia...as I pointed out in earlier posts in reference to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and then again in the U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Section 13, Section 311.

What you're doing here is the gunner's shuffle by ignoring information that doesn't support your assertions, and then make all types near topic comparisons that you'll tout as the REAL discussion. Emphasizing that the phrase "....the people" appears in several amendments does NOT mean complete duplication of application of what "the people" are allowed to do/have the right to do/must comply to do to the particular Article, section, code, etc. Then you throw in an opinion piece to further support your assertions, supposition and conjecture. Sorry, but that dog won't fly here despite how many times you toss it. My answers in Posts #35, 38, and 39 stands pat, as they don't require interpretation, but a simple additional reading on the same topic that details the who, what, why's and hows.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
So how is discrimination against white men constitutional, but discrimination against non-whites and women is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as tariffs are kept at a high enough rate to ward off the evil globalists.

Shit, the post below this one doesn't even deserve a response. Congrats to Asshate for not having the most ignorant post on the page.
 
Threedee said:
Yes, as long as tariffs are kept at a high enough rate to ward off the evil globalists.

Shit, the post below this one doesn't even deserve a response. Congrats to Asshate for not having the most ignorant post on the page.
Click to expand...

Actually it looks like i flattened socrtease with his own hypocrisy.

He pretends to care about honest readings of the constitution, except when it comes to his malicious racially motivated desires to discriminate against white males.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
You demonstrate the reading comprehension problem that is indicative of all gunners when it comes to the Second Amendment. I never implied in any way, shape or form what you are asserting. A simple reading makes it clear that in order to maintain a militia, it's members (the people) have the right to bear arms. NOTHING there states that ALL citizens are AUTOMATICALLY part of a militia...as I pointed out in earlier posts in reference to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and then again in the U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Section 13, Section 311.

What you're doing here is the gunner's shuffle by ignoring information that doesn't support your assertions, and then make all types near topic comparisons that you'll tout as the REAL discussion. Emphasizing that the phrase "....the people" appears in several amendments does NOT mean complete duplication of application of what "the people" are allowed to do/have the right to do/must comply to do to the particular Article, section, code, etc. Then you throw in an opinion piece to further support your assertions, supposition and conjecture. Sorry, but that dog won't fly here despite how many times you toss it. My answers in Posts #35, 38, and 39 stands pat, as they don't require interpretation, but a simple additional reading on the same topic that details the who, what, why's and hows.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment does not establish the militia, it instead says that one of the most important reasons that the people be armed is so that states can maintain a militia. The second clause in the amendment is not dependent on the first. Instead, it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was a pre-existent right that the framers state can not be infringed. Only the most obtuse reading of the amendment makes the second half of the amendment dependent on the first.
 
Socrtease said:
The Second Amendment does not establish the militia, it instead says that one of the most important reasons that the people be armed is so that states can maintain a militia. The second clause in the amendment is not dependent on the first. Instead, it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was a pre-existent right that the framers state can not be infringed. Only the most obtuse reading of the amendment makes the second half of the amendment dependent on the first.
Click to expand...

You know what's more obtuse? believing the constitution doesn't protect white males against race/gender discrimination.


Socrtease has completely invalidated himself, in his own profession no less.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You demonstrate the reading comprehension problem that is indicative of all gunners when it comes to the Second Amendment. I never implied in any way, shape or form what you are asserting. A simple reading makes it clear that in order to maintain a militia, it's members (the people) have the right to bear arms. NOTHING there states that ALL citizens are AUTOMATICALLY part of a militia...as I pointed out in earlier posts in reference to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and then again in the U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Section 13, Section 311.

What you're doing here is the gunner's shuffle by ignoring information that doesn't support your assertions, and then make all types near topic comparisons that you'll tout as the REAL discussion. Emphasizing that the phrase "....the people" appears in several amendments does NOT mean complete duplication of application of what "the people" are allowed to do/have the right to do/must comply to do to the particular Article, section, code, etc. Then you throw in an opinion piece to further support your assertions, supposition and conjecture. Sorry, but that dog won't fly here despite how many times you toss it. My answers in Posts #35, 38, and 39 stands pat, as they don't require interpretation, but a simple additional reading on the same topic that details the who, what, why's and hows.
Click to expand...



Socrtease said:
The Second Amendment does not establish the militia, No kidding?!! I never alluded to such. it instead says that one of the most important reasons that the people be armed is so that states can maintain a militia. again, you state the painfully obvious...and it DOES NOT STATE that people automatically are part of a militia. You have to join one...the second amendment just insures peoples right to do so. The second clause in the amendment is not dependent on the first. Really? Says who? Because that sure as hell makes the other code and article I sighted confusing, as they are ALL inter-connected. Instead, it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was a pre-existent right that the framers state can not be infringed. Okay, one more time for the cheap seats....trying to separate parts of a Constitutional article and then attach personal supposition and conjecture is a LAME ploy by those who want THEIR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION to stand as fact and truth. It's a Lame ploy because others CAN READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AND SUBSEQUENT RELATED MATERIAL to see the flaw in such a ploy....as I've demonstrated on this thread a few times.Only the most obtuse reading of the amendment makes the second half of the amendment dependent on the first.
Click to expand...

:palm: You make an accusation that is rendered total bullshit by the chronology of posted responses and information provided.....whatever helps you sleep at night, kid. Later.
 
I'm always amazed that the 2nd Amendment is so much more extreme than the 1st in upholding the right/s it addresses by blanketly stating "shall not be infringed" (meaning, governments of all levels can literally do absolutely nothing at all) in contrast to the 1st limiting itself to "Congress shall pass no law," and yet we still have people willing to debate as if the language could be any more clear.
 
Threedee said:
I'm always amazed that the 2nd Amendment is so much more extreme than the 1st in upholding the right/s it addresses by blanketly stating "shall not be infringed" (meaning, governments of all levels can literally do absolutely nothing at all) in contrast to the 1st limiting itself to "Congress shall pass no law," and yet we still have people willing to debate as if the language could be any more clear.
Click to expand...

I concur. It's equally odd how many see nothing wrong with blatant codified discrimination against white males, considering discrimination its such a hot button issue in our past and present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top