|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons. Please show where this is a right.
Courts over the years have been stacked with liberal judges and yes they have tried to change the Constitution.
Evidence? Antonin Scalia is a liberal?
At the time the second amendment was written the Arms of the people were to be the same as the military so the local militia was equipted just as well as a standing army.
The peoples arms were not to be those of the military. Show this is true or retract. Join a well regulated militia and you can have access to those arms too. Why are you making our argument for us?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Theodoric,
Theodoric writes: Evidence? Antonin Scalia is a liberal? I don't think Justice Scalia was around during the period from 1900 to 1930 as a judge. That is when presidents were set that he has not overruled.
Theodoric writes:
The peoples arms were not to be those of the military. From Federalist Paper # 29, Alexander Hamilton's argument to the people of the State of New York for ratification of the Constitution.
quote:Emphasis added. Hamilton argued that the weapons of the citizens should be equal to any standing army or very little if any inferior to their weapons. These arguments are what caused the States to ratify the Constitution. Here is a little more information for you to digest.
quote:Source That should be enough for you to see what the arguments was during and after the ratification of the Constitution. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I don't think Justice Scalia was around during the period from 1900 to 1930 as a judge. That is when presidents were set that he has not overruled. What second amendment precedents were set between 1900 and 1930? The Supreme Court actually said nothing of significance about the second amendment during that period. Here are Justice Scalia's own words from DC v Heller.
quote: If you are going to lean on Scalia so heavily, remember that he wrote the entire majority opinion in DC v Heller. If Scalia did not accept the part quote above, he was not required to acknowledge it as it had nothing at all to do with the case in front of him, which was about handguns and not M-16s. In other words it is dicta indicating Scalia's own thoughts on the matter. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Taq writes: Just to be clear, SCOTUS does not have the power to make the laws. They only have the power to determine if the laws violate constitutional rights after the laws have been enacted by the federal, state, or local government. That was an incorrect way to word what I was attempting to say there. Lol. What I intended is that the Constitution sets forth that it is the job of the SCOTUS to determine if a law is constitutional. As the courts have ruled that bans on certain types of weapons are constitutional then according to the rules set forth in the constitution, bans on some types of weapons are perfectly okay to have and do not breach the second amendment. By denying that this is the case, ICANT is stating that he strongly believes in favor of one part of what the constitution says, but when it comes to who is to determine the constitutionality of laws he blatantly refuses to listen to the constitution. ICANT, if you want to use the Constitution to defend your position, stop quote mining the work of the Founding Fathers and realize that the entire document is important, not simply the one line that allows you to get your way. Banning specific weapons is constitutional as per the SCOTUS (who is granted the power to determine this by the Constitution) and Congress is allowed to enact laws that do so. Article III Section 2 "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
Source BTW-I am not one of the people in favor of a ban on assault rifles. I am simply someone who wants to see deaths (homicide, accidental and suicide) from firearms decrease and I find that regulations, registration, and proper training/licensing would be the best route that we could take toward that end.The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons. Where is that language in the 2nd amendment?
Courts over the years have been stacked with liberal judges and yes they have tried to change the Constitution. But the fact remains the Constitution still stands and they have not changed the original meaning. It is the Constitution that gives courts the power to interpret the Constitution. It is the courts that decide what the Constitution says, not you. For a long time now the courts have stated quite clearly that the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right, and that regulation of arms is constitutional. You can't throw out the court decisions and still claim to be upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is not a buffet where you get to pick and chose what you will accept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
From Federalist Paper # 29, Alexander Hamilton's argument to the people of the State of New York for ratification of the Constitution. You know that Alexander Hamilton was opposed to the very existence of a Bill of Rights, yes? So his ideas about liberty, right or wrong, can hardly serve as an interpretation of the Bill of Rights which was produced by someone else (James Madison) contrary to Hamilton's view that there shouldn't even be a Bill of Rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: You know that Alexander Hamilton was opposed to the very existence of a Bill of Rights, yes? Are you saying Hamilton did not argue in the Federalist Paper #29 the following:
quote:Emphasis added. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: It is the Constitution that gives courts the power to interpret the Constitution. I posted earlier the duties of the Court and nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution. I did get the idea they were supposed to make sure the laws passed by the Congress was in line with what was written in the Constitution.
Taq writes: You can't throw out the court decisions and still claim to be upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is not a buffet where you get to pick and chose what you will accept. Why can't I disagree with the Court? They get up in the morning and put their clothes on, which I do also. You don't get to pick and choose either. The Constitution is the law of the land until changed by the States. There was those in the early 1800's that wanted to limit the weapons the citizens could own and there have been those from that time to this that wants to disarm the citizens. Judges today go along with decision of Judges that was made long ago. But just because some Judge thought something was right does not make it right. Obama has put forth a mandatory buy back. That means confiscation. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I posted earlier the duties of the Court and nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution. And with that you would be going against 220+ years of US history and jurisprudence. Tell me how that works for you.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
... nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution. I did get the idea they were supposed to make sure the laws passed by the Congress was in line with what was written in the Constitution. And how does the court keep the congress in line with the constitution if the court does not interpret the letter, spirit and intent of the document? The document may not say "thou shalt interpret" in so many words but the wording and intent of Article III leaves no doubt where this power was to reside.
Why can't I disagree with the Court? You are free to disagree with the court's rulings all you want. But the law, which is what the court's rulings are, does not care if you agree or disagree. No one is above the law. If you violate the law there will be consequences.
But just because some Judge thought something was right does not make it right. These are human institutions within a human society. Nothing will be perfect in every case. Someone, somewhere, has to be the final arbiter in fact and in law. There must be a final resolution to all adversarial issues. In the USA the constitution gives that right solely and exclusively to the Supreme Court. It may not be a perfect solution, but it sure seems a whole lot better than we have seen in a whole bunch of other systems. Edited by AZPaul3, : stuff
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
And those writings have nothing to do with US law or the Constitution. They were propaganda pieces written to support the ratification of the Constitution. Yes they are important writings of some of the founders, but they are by no means accepted as a final authority.
You want to us Alexander Hamilton as support for your views. What about when he disagrees with you? Do you just ignore that?
quote: Finally what does what you quote from Hamilton have to do with what Dr. Adequate had to say about Hamilton not supporting a Bill of Rights.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My mind and eyes are failing me. Could you give me the Section and the line that statement is on. The Supreme Court is the final authority on whether a law is or is not constitutional. In order to make that final determination, which we all seem to agree is described by the constitution, the Supreme Court must interpret the constitution. How could it be otherwise? The Supreme Court decides what kind of circumstances create an unreasonable search, and what kinds limits on purchasing and owning firearms constitute an infringement the right to bear arms. Not ICANT, not Alexander Hamilton or any dead founding dude. The majority vote of the non-recused Supreme Court Justices is the sole authority to make the final decision of constitutionality.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
I posted earlier the duties of the Court and nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution. It baffles me that you, a citizen of the US, know less about how the US works than the people taking a test to become citizens of the US. You should take a few classes on how your country and it's government works, I believe they call it High School? This is ridiculous to read from you, an American. Wow! You seriously don't know how any of this works.
The Constitution is the law of the land until changed by the States. Which "states"...? All the states? Or just one states? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hamilton argued that the weapons of the citizens should be equal to any standing army or very little if any inferior to their weapons. What Hamilton said in those papers - (and really, who cares what he said, it's 2013 - we, as a nation, can make our own decisions on how we want the country to run) - made sense when the standing army had muskets. However... Are you saying you should be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets, and high powered military weapons to defend yourself against an attack from the US military? Oh, and you should be allowed to own nuclear warheads too and missiles? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
ICANT writes: It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons. Obviously, this must be the truth for everyone so I'm sure that you would have no problem with either Iran or N. Korea having nuclear weapons as they obviously have the right to face their enemies, (namely the US), with equal weapons as well.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024