Liberal gun bullshit

SmarterthanYou said:
cite the court cases please
Click to expand...

Justice Wilson relies upon the preamble to explain the State's relationship to the Federal Government. Parses the objectives as in my version (a) i.e.: sees "Blessings of liberty" as part of a list of goals, implying that "to ourselves and our Posterity" applies to full list. (at 463)

Chief Justice Jay also relies on preamble to analyze the State's role, but does not separate "Blessings..." from "ourselves...", thus implying my version (b) or (c) of syntax.(at 475)

Interesting as it is first, or certainly one of the first, attempts by the SC to interpret Constitution. Two framers, now on court, both started at the preamble, and accorded it considerable interpretive value.
http://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm

James Wilson (1742–1798) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilson

John Jay, (born Dec. 12, 1745, New York, N.Y. [U.S.]—died May 17, 1829, Bedford, N.Y., U.S.), a Founding Father of the United States…. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/301875/John-Jay


Feel free to do further research.
 
apple0154 said:
Ahhh, good come-back. I'm to prove a negative. :palm:
Click to expand...

You claim it saves lives, however all evidence thus far has shown that gun control has no effect on crime, ergo, it cannot be said to save lives. Therefore, your claim is a false one, and to be rightly dismissed.
 
apple0154 said:
Justice Wilson relies upon the preamble to explain the State's relationship to the Federal Government. Parses the objectives as in my version (a) i.e.: sees "Blessings of liberty" as part of a list of goals, implying that "to ourselves and our Posterity" applies to full list. (at 463)

Chief Justice Jay also relies on preamble to analyze the State's role, but does not separate "Blessings..." from "ourselves...", thus implying my version (b) or (c) of syntax.(at 475)

Interesting as it is first, or certainly one of the first, attempts by the SC to interpret Constitution. Two framers, now on court, both started at the preamble, and accorded it considerable interpretive value.
http://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm

James Wilson (1742–1798) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilson

John Jay, (born Dec. 12, 1745, New York, N.Y. [U.S.]—died May 17, 1829, Bedford, N.Y., U.S.), a Founding Father of the United States…. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/301875/John-Jay


Feel free to do further research.
Click to expand...
thanks, I notice that you maybe failed to do your own research, or pointedly ignored this little tidbit...

Jacobson v. Mass, 197 U.S. 11 (1904)

The only case in which the Supreme Court has directly addressed a claim based on the Preamble. In this case the court examined the Constitutional rights of Jacobson, and rejected his claim to a personal right, derived from then Preamble, to the "blessings of liberty". In rejecting Jacobson’s claim, the Court wrote that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and went on to point out that "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..." .
 
Dungheap said:
Why should they? To make you happy? Sure, it'd be nice if people had all the lingo down, but I don't think its a prerequisite to having an opinion on guns.
Click to expand...

It's a silencing tactic they use. If you don't know as much about guns as a fanatical gun nutter who gets "throbbing erections" from playing with guns, then you don't get a say. It's a very ineffective debate tactic because it's laughable on its face.
 
Darla said:
It's a silencing tactic they use. If you don't know as much about guns as a fanatical gun nutter who gets "throbbing erections" from playing with guns, then you don't get a say. It's a very ineffective debate tactic because it's laughable on its face.
Click to expand...
or we could compare it to your stupidity of requiring training in order to exercise a fundamental right.
 
Dungheap said:
Why should they? To make you happy? Sure, it'd be nice if people had all the lingo down, but I don't think its a prerequisite to having an opinion on guns.
Click to expand...

Well it's kinda important to know what the things people want banned actually do. Everyone throws around the "military styled assault weapon with 100 clips" so much it's a fucking meme. But since that's the actual argument being made, people making it should probably know what it means, and know what does and does not fit that criteria. Fuck, at least know what practical effect you want people not to have.
 
Sparta said:
Well it's kinda important to know what the things people want banned actually do. Everyone throws around the "military styled assault weapon with 100 clips" so much it's a fucking meme. But since that's the actual argument being made, people making it should probably know what it means, and know what does and does not fit that criteria. Fuck, at least know what practical effect you want people not to have.
Click to expand...


So you'd be happier instead if people supported banning modern sporting rifles with high capacity magazines?
 
Dungheap said:
So you'd be happier instead if people supported banning modern sporting rifles with high capacity magazines?
Click to expand...


:palm: I'd be happier if you knew what you were actually trying to ban, and things that you aren't, and what the distinction between the two of them is. So since you're a intelligent man, and reasonable enough to talk to, what SHOULD be banned? Why? I'm not asking you to know the terminology, I'm asking you to know, and describe, the practical effects that you don't want people to have.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, moron. the point that he has to do it EVERY TIME. EVERY TIME. and EVERY TIME that it's cleared up, the DHS and TSA do not bother removing him from the no fly list, so he has to do EVERY TIME!! of course we see that doesn't matter to you because 1) it's not happening to you and 2) it makes you feel safer.
Click to expand...


Well I'd say thats mighty INCONVENIENT, but is it proof we are on a "slippery slope" to tyranny?

Not hardly.
 
cannabis said:
and dems could have done away with the patriot act when they controlled both houses...but not even obama voted for that, he in fact voted to increase the patriot act's reach.

you're like evince when it comes to politics. you never see a democrat as doing anything wrong.
Click to expand...


And face the ridiculous lies from hateful Righties who would have spent weeks running around claiming anyone attempting to abolish the Patriot Act is un-American and out to destroy this country?

We saw it in 2004 and in 08.
 
Rune said:
Ask the FBI why I am on a list, and when I leave the country I need to sit at customs for 2 hours longer than anyoe else, while they try to find out why I am on the list.
Ask them why they will not tell me why I am on their list.
Because I have some blogs? So much for the first ammendment, now it's the second, who knows what tommorow.
Click to expand...


"so much for the first amendment..."

Oh the HYPERBOLE!!

Dude, these histrionics are so unlike you.

"But I have to sit in airports for two hours because I am on the 'no fly' list."

but eventually they let you fly

It appears to me you are on the "check guy before flying" list, because they eventually let you fly.
 
Dungheap said:
I love the gun afficianados scolding people for having opinions about guns without being experts on gun terminology. Reminds me of the dicks that pulled rank when people criticized how Romeny earned his millions: You don't know how private equity works.
Click to expand...


Give them a break.

It's one of the few times these gun nuts have the opportunity to sound halfway intelligent and I imagine they want to make the most of the chance.
 
TV talk, yes, I tuned in today, is that what needs to be addressed and the things that can make a difference is private gun sales and limit on the size of magazine, clips.
 
Rana said:
TV talk, yes, I tuned in today, is that what needs to be addressed and the things that can make a difference is private gun sales and limit on the size of magazine, clips.
Click to expand...

Private sales? So I cannot sell my own legal property to someone else?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Give them a break.

It's one of the few times these gun nuts have the opportunity to sound halfway intelligent and I imagine they want to make the most of the chance.
Click to expand...

So we should listen to experts on matters of history, economics, healthcare, the environment, and all manner of things, EXCEPT guns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top