Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment
    #2250819 -

the meanings of the actual court rulings weren't particularly relevant to the discussion in the other thread, so i've started this thread to examine the actual court rulings.

U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876

this supreme court case is usually cited out of context by wishfully thinking anti-gunners. consider an example from the other thread:

U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876, The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.

this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the court's decision. of course the second amendment does not grant the individual the right to own a weapon... it only protects that right, which is pre-existing. this is exactly what was actually found in US. v. Cruikshank.

the statement, in context:

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection... The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed"

US v. Cruikshank (1876)... (emphasis mine).

so here we see how the statement has been taken entirely out of context and misinterpreted by the media, anti-gun people, and even judges in recent rulings.

the real meaning of the statements in the ruling: the second amendment does not establish a right for citizens to keep and bear arms. rather, that right is pre-exisiting. the only thing the constitution does is prohibit the government from infringing upon it.

another supreme court veiw upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms was expressed in the case of Presser v. People of Illinois (1886):

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."

(emphasis mine)

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

here is another famous case that is misquoted and misunderstood. the ruling found:

1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.

2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

what the ruling is always referring to is the weapon itself, not the person wielding it. what it says is that a weapon with no military use is not protected by the second amendment. nowhere does it say that the person owning a weapon must be a part of the military to own weapons. apparently they were also ignorant of the fact that short-barrelled shotguns were used extensively during trench warfare in WW I. regardless, the court ruling does not in any way imply that a person must be in the military to own weapons, only that the weapons they own must have some military application.

perhaps even more damning to the anti-gunners (and as such, a part they leave out), is the courts findings on the definition of the word "militia":

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

what the miller court essentially found was that private gun ownership was protected by the second amendment, and that private citizens constitute "the milita", however, the weapons they may own must have some kind of military efficacy.

a case cited in the other thread:

Eckert v. City of Philadelphia-1973, 6th Circuit Court, "it must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the U.S. Constitution."

the next sentence in the ruling is a reference to the U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) ruling, which they clearly took out of context.

Lewis v. U.S. (1980)

the court found that prohibiting a convicted felon from buying a firearm was not a violation of his second amendment rights. fair enough. it said nothing about the rest of us.

the next case:

Quilici V. Village of Morton Grove (1982)

here the court concluded that handgun ownership was not protected because it wasn't linked to membership in the militia. US v. Miller was referenced. again, this is a misinterpretation of an earlier case. the ruling of US v. Miller, found that the "militia" "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that guns that guns with no military application are not protected. handguns have a military application, and all able-bodied males are part of the "militia". yet another easily debunked "accidental" misinterpretation of earlier court rulings.

U.S. v. Hale (1992)

another case which (deliberately?) misinterpreted US v. Miller and concluded that on the basis of its findings, gun ownership was not an individual right.


here we can see what's going on. older supreme court rulings have affirmed the right of individuals to own guns. in contemporary times, judges have "interpreted" these rulings to mean something opposite of what they did, so as to hand down the particular rulings which they wanted to hand down. every single modern court case i have found nullifying the second amendment has cited either cruikshank or miller cases, and they have gotten the meaning entirely wrong. it doesn't take alot to figure out what was meant in the cruikshank or miller cases... the texts are available to anyone who cares to look.

the courts in the US have not "consistantly ruled" against the private-gun ownership interpretation of the second amendment. on the contrary, the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to own weapons, especially when those weapons have a military use, and moreso, that the right to keep and bear arms is not something granted by the second amendment, but is preexisting.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: supreme court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2250834 -

Quote:
the texts are available to anyone who cares to look


Therein lies the problem.

Nice piece of work though. Very nice.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2252494 -

What source did you get this from mush? I'd like to know the source before I consider worth reading.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2252517 -

What source did you get this from mush? I'd like to know the source before I consider worth reading.

the texts of the rulings. i thought i made that clear. they are available to the public and you can find them online very easily.

Edited by mushmaster (01/19/04 11:06 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2253187 -

You made it quite clear.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2253458 -

Good job on those findings! I think we are all anticipating "Alex123"'s next comments.


--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2255033 -

Let's keep this up top until PinocchiALPO responds.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2256800 -

Bumped for PinocchiAL


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2256866 -

luvdemshrooms said:
Bumped for PinocchiAL


Does "Alex123" have a hard time responding to factual articles,or is he maybe away for a few days? Odd that his input seemed to stop just as soon as the obvious objectivity of the inital source was disclosed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2256870 -

hehe...

something tells me rono's not gonna like this. here's what i'll do... i'll link this thread to the other one, and next time someone comes out claiming that the second amendment doesn't preserve the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, we can just search for it. as much as i'd like to see alex admit wrong and possibly reconsider his position in light of all the contradicting evidence, i think we both know it ain't gonna happen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2256875 -

You'll get used to it. It's his SOP.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2256886 -

I think Rono shouldn't have a problem as long as there are no flames.

I used to think he'd never admit error also, but to his credit, he did so ONCE that I'm aware of. Of course it took a LONG time. I'd guess nearly a year.

EDIT: Yup, a year.

Of course even then he never used the "w" word.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/20/04 05:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2258971 -

as i'd like to see alex admit wrong

What am I wrong about mush? Expert legal judgements in your own country?

You have every right to believe whatever you like, and the legal system has the right to call your opinion horseshit and make their own judgements. Don't get angry at me because the legal experts don't agree with you.

someone comes out claiming that the second amendment doesn't preserve the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, we can just search for it

My, you are getting your panties in a twist over this. The legal system in America doesn't buy your theories. Instead of complaining about it, why not try and understand where you're going wrong in your "interpretation?"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2258973 -

But luvdemlies, we're still waiting for you to admit George Bush went underground on Sep 11.

Or accept there were no WMD in Iraq.

Lets not hold our breath eh?  :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2259190 -


You have every right to believe whatever you like, and the legal system has the right to call your opinion horseshit and make their own judgements. Don't get angry at me because the legal experts don't agree with you.

i believe i have shown you quite clearly how the "legal experts" have willfully misinterpreted the meanings of both the constitution and past supreme court rulings. if you want to continue believing both that the second amendment doesn't preserve the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, and that the "legal experts" who agree with you are correct, i suppose that's fine. at least you don't vote here.

Instead of complaining about it, why not try and understand where you're going wrong in your "interpretation?"

why don't you try explaining it to me then? please show me why i am wrong and the judges you are referring to are correct. i've shown you quite clearly how absurd it is to "interpret" the 2nd amendment as not guaranteeing the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, and you have given no rebuttal. i've even shown you statements from actual supreme court cases affirming the second amendment's message, and you have given me no rebuttal. i've shown you how these older rulings have been misinterpreted in contemporary times, and you have provided no rebuttal. so far nothing you have said has gone unrebuked, and everything i've said has.

the actual text of the second amendment, the commentary by the men who signed it, as well as their contemporaries; the state constitutions which mirror the second amendment, and 3 supreme court cases affirm that the second amendment is intended to preserve the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. the only ones saying otherwise are you, the anti-gun rights lobby, and some judges who can easily be shown as having misinterpreted older court rulings.

your entire argument here has been based on nothing more than a blind appeal to authority. if you want to continue believing as you do, fine, but this thread sure has become a shining example of your stubbornness and inability to ever admit wrong.

here's 2 questions for you:

1. do you believe that the modern courts are correct in their interpretation of the second amendment as not preserving the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms? why?

2. do you believe that these modern courts have correctly interpreted the supreme court cases they cite as precedence for their rulings, namely the cruikshank and miller cases? why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2259359 -

why don't you try explaining it to me then?

What good is there in me explaining it? It's the judges and legal experts you need to read. You can find that on plenty of websites.

shining example of your stubbornness and inability to ever admit wrong

What on earth are you on about mush? I'm simply telling you what the judges say. Nothing stubborn about it at all. If they say anything different we can talk about that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2259368 -

It's the judges and legal experts you need to read. You can find that on plenty of websites.

i have read it, i am familiar with it, and i am saying that they are wrong. i've shown why they are wrong in both their interpretation of the second amendment and previous supreme court rulings. you are saying that they are right. you have not shown why they are right. your argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and what's more, this authority is easily shown as being mistaken and incorrect in its conclusions.

I'm simply telling you what the judges say.

you've done more than that. you've agreed with them. do you think that they are right in their interpretations? why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2259405 -

i've shown why they are wrong in both their interpretation of the second amendment and previous supreme court rulings

No, you've given me your pretty shaky opinion.

do you think that they are right in their interpretations? why?

Because the second amendment states in utterly clear terms "THE MILITIA". I don't think the founding fathers were so stupid they couldn't express themselves clearly. If they'd meant "Everyone can own a gun" they would have said that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2259717 -

Alex123 said:
If they'd meant "Everyone can own a gun" they would have said that.


"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
- U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment. Pretty obvious to someone who isn't blinded by political dogma.

As far as 'The Militia,' a working understanding of the English language and the concept of 'subordinate clause' would suffice to understand the sentence structure. Apparently, this is beyond your grasp or out of character for you to be honest about.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2259768 -

mushmaster said:
... your entire argument here has been based on nothing more than a blind appeal to authority.


Don't forget, dictators love this way of thinking. It is what made Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union wonderful killing machines of their own citizens. It is what fueled the Catholic Church in the Inquisition. It is a defining element of the character of the Vichy Government supporters who were traitors to their own people and their own nation. Boot lickers everywhere base their idolatrous power worship on it. Free thinkers and free men are different, that's why we are despised by all 'right' thinking people.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2259968 -


No, you've given me your pretty shaky opinion.

if it is so shaky, how about refuting just a single one of my actual arguments?

Because the second amendment states in utterly clear terms "THE MILITIA".

seriously alex. i already presented arguments about what the militia clause means for the second amendment in the other thread, and you offered no response save an appeal to authority. why must i keep repeating myself? this is getting old. you are running around in circles now.

here's where we've been:

1. you say that the militia clause means that the second amendment doesn't protect the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms.
2. i present an argument claiming otherwise.
3. you address none of my assertions, but appeal to the authority of the courts.
4. i ask you why you think the courts are right.
5. you say that it's because the militia clause means that the second amendment doesn't protect the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms.

shall i present my argument about the militia clause again? will you answer me with an empty appeal to authority? will i have to again ask you why you think the judges are right? will you again respond with your original assertion?

this is circular logic combined with a blind appeal to authority. how about refuting some of my actual arguments (especially considering how "shaky" they are)?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2260223 -

Well that was a short lived burst of honesty.

Actually PinocchiALPO, the term you used was "down a hole", not "underground.

And as I've never claimed there were or were not WMD's, there is nothing for me to accept one way or the other.

It's a shame you aren't honorable enough to be honest.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2261841 -

if it is so shaky how about refuting just a single one of my actual arguments?

You can find it refuted by dozens of legal experts everywhere on the net. I'm not a lawyer.

combined with a blind appeal to authority

What is this mysterious "authority" you keep talking about? Do you the mean countless legal experts who have studied the subject for the last 100 years?

What "authority" do they have except the authority of truth? Or are they all part of some communist conspiracy to "keep neocon down"?

why must i keep repeating myself?

Because the Supreme court doesn't agree with you?

Have you ever asked yourself why the legal experts don't agree with you? What answer did you get?

shall i present my argument about the militia clause again?

What difference does it make? If no legal experts believe you what does it matter what I say? Have you ever considered addressing these questions to a judge in a court of law? I presume the NRA have and realised they would lose - which is why they don't risk challenging it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2261853 -

the term you used was "down a hole", not "underground.

:lol:

The difference being?

And as I've never claimed there were or were not WMD's, there is nothing for me to accept one way or the other.

No, you have refused to accept WMD arn't there. You have provided no evidence whatsoever they were there in the first place. In the world of honest men, evidence comes before a claim. Perhaps one day you'll learn that. Doubtful tho  :smile2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262055 -

The difference being had you been man enough to say bunker, I could only have challenged your incredibly moronic 11 hours claim. Instead you allowed your hatred to yet again disable your thought processes and then say something stupid.

Quote:
No, you have refused to accept WMD arn't there.


Liar. I've never made any such claim. You're well aware that all I pointed out to you was the stupidity of claiming the inability to find them is proof they don't exist. Nowhere did I claim they do exist.


Quote:
In the world of honest men, evidence comes before a claim.


You, the most disingenuous person in this forum are foolish enough to even use the word honest? Perhaps you'll show me where I claimed the weapons did indeed exist?

No? Didn't think so.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2262104 -

The difference being had you been man enough to say bunker

So a bunker isn't a hole in the ground? What an incredible liar you are. 

Instead you allowed your hatred to yet again disable your thought processes and then say something stupid.

Was he down a hole in the ground or not? Simple enough question even for one as filled with hatred as you. 

Main Entry: hole
Pronunciation: 'hOl
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hol (from neuter of hol, adjective, hollow) & holh; akin to Old High German hol, adjective, hollow and perhaps to Old English helan to conceal -- more at HELL
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an opening through something : PERFORATION b : an area where something is missing

Liar. I've never made any such claim

Liar. You have repeatedly refused to accept WMD arn't there. You have spent the last 9 months demanding "proof" before you accept they arn't there.  What evidence did you have that WMD were there in the first place? You have played dodgeball whenever you were called on this.

As I said, in the world of honest men, evidence comes BEFORE a claim.

You, the most disingenuous person in this forum

Are you talking to the mirror now luvdemlies?  :lol:

Perhaps you'll show me where I claimed the weapons did indeed exist?

Then why have you spent 9 months refusing to accept they arn't there? You have repeatedly demanded "proof" before you accept they arn't there. You have played dodgeball when asked to answer what "proof" you are seeking. Perhaps you will finally answer now? Or will you go on lying for another year?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262107 -

Sometimes you two sound like a couple of grumpy old men in an old-folks home.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Edited by carbonhoots (01/22/04 04:45 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: carbonhoots]
    #2262109 -

I know, I find it very tiresome, but what else would he understand? I think it's time to add him to the ignore list.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262297 -

You can find it refuted by dozens of legal experts everywhere on the net. I'm not a lawyer.

i have a feeling that you won't find a single "legal expert" anywhere that can offer a decent counter-argument to what i've said about the militia clause. if you can, please provide it. i would expect that if there are "dozens" of them, you could find at least one that addresses my arguments. you seem pretty reluctant to do so.

What is this mysterious "authority" you keep talking about?

the nebulous "legal experts" you continuously refer to. as of yet, you haven't provided a single link or article from just one "legal expert". let's see one, eh?

Do you the mean countless legal experts who have studied the subject for the last 100 years?

yes, those. where are they? where can i read some of their work?

What "authority" do they have except the authority of truth?

they don't have the authority of truth. that's why if you actually cite one's argument, i will very likely be able to show you why they are wrong without much difficulty. i ask you again... who are these "experts" and where can i read some of their work?

What difference does it make?

probably none, because you've chosen to ignore, and i suspect you will continue to ignore, the substance of my argument in favor of some as-of-yet unnamed "legal experts".

if there is an argument to be made against what i've said about the militia clause and someone has made it (you have said that this exists in "dozens" of places on the internet), could you provide a link or something to just one? so far the only "legal experts" cited in this thread are the ones in my original post.

i'd like to read an actual argument. an appeal to the authority of nameless "experts" is no argument at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2262640 -

i have a feeling that you won't find a single "legal expert" anywhere that can offer a decent counter-argument to what i've said about the militia clause

So why doesn't the US supreme court and judicial system accept your opinion?

the nebulous "legal experts"

Nothing nebulous about them mush. Clearly someone is advising the US supreme court and judicial system that the second amendment doesn't mean what you say it means.

where are they? where can i read some of their work?

You mean you really can't find any? I found this in 10 seconds.

Here's 68 pages for you to work through:

WASHINGTON, DC?U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton last night dismissed a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC's ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Judge Walton's 68-page ruling in Seegars v. Ashcroft upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0401dcban.htm

Let me know when you want some more.

i will very likely be able to show you why they are wrong without much difficulty.

Then why don't you take this to a court of law mush? Sounds like you wouldn't have any difficulty getting your interpretation passed. You could be a hero and probably secure yourself financially for the rest of your life. You could even stop worrying about tax's. Have you written to the NRA and told them you can prove their case for them? Give it a try.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262660 -

Still playing dodge ball Alex?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262854 -

So why doesn't the US supreme court and judicial system accept your opinion?

at the beginning of this thread, i cited 3 different US supreme court cases which agreed with my opinion. i then showed how later courts misinterpreted their rulings to mean something quite different than what they had said. even then, i would never base my argument on that alone. please alex... show me an actual argument in favor of your interpretation of the second amendment. let's talk reason and sense, not the opinions of politically charged groups of men.

Nothing nebulous about them mush.

as you've given not a name or title of even a single one of these "experts", nor any of their testimony about the second amendment, i still see them as quite nebulous.

Clearly someone is advising the US supreme court and judicial system that the second amendment doesn't mean what you say it means.

who is that "someone", and what arguments have they been using? specifics please.

and why do you keep referring to the supreme court as not agreeing with my interpretation? i've given you 3 examples of rulings in which they have.

You mean you really can't find any? I found this in 10 seconds.

:lol:

you mean the same case i was talking about when this whole thing got started? read the judges commentary. his only justification for the rulings is where he cites the the cruikshank, presser, and miller cases, all of which actually conclude that private gun ownership is an individual right protected by the second amendment. i'm afraid that unsupported opinions of politically charged men, even judges, do your case no good unless they is backed by a sound rational argument.

Let me know when you want some more.

seeing as that judge walton offered no rationale for his decision, i would like some more. i would like to here some reason. i'd like to hear the actual logic behind the decisions, if it does in fact exist.

Then why don't you take this to a court of law mush? Sounds like you wouldn't have any difficulty getting your interpretation passed. You could be a hero and probably secure yourself financially for the rest of your life. You could even stop worrying about tax's. Have you written to the NRA and told them you can prove their case for them? Give it a try.

if i did argue it in front of them, what arguments do you think they would use? what rebuttals would they give to my arguments?

so far you've been standing behind an un-named set of arguments argued by an un-named set of arguers. please. all i want to hear is the arguments. tell me why your position is reasonable. tell me why it's right.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Evolving]
    #2262871 -


Still playing dodge ball Alex?

it would appear so.

will we hear a rational argument from alex123 in support of his beliefs... or will he continue hiding behind the unsupported authority of a politically-charged (and disagreeing) body of bureaucrats?

i'll take just about any odds on the latter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263073 -

Quote:
I know, I find it very tiresome, but what else would he understand? I think it's time to add him to the ignore list.


Please do. You have no comprehension of the what truth is. Being put on your ignore list would be quite nice. I'll still be here to point out your dishonesty to others.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2263086 -

not the opinions of politically charged groups of men.

Who are these? You mean the vast bulk of lawyers advising the Supreme court and US judicial system for the last 100 years? They were all in on some communist conspiracy?

Why do you think they don't agree with you?

as you've given not a name or title of even a single one of these "experts", nor any of their testimony about the second amendment

Do you really need me to find you the lawyers and judges who have served on the US supreme court for the last 100 years?

and why do you keep referring to the supreme court as not agreeing with my interpretation? i've given you 3 examples of rulings in which they have.

Then why are the NRA still trying to overturn their ruling?

his only justification for the rulings is where he cites the the cruikshank, presser, and miller cases, all of which actually conclude that private gun ownership is an individual right protected by the second amendment.

Where did you study law mush? Clearly the judge doesn't agree with you.

seeing as that judge walton offered no rationale for his decision

You mean apart from the 68 pages..

if i did argue it in front of them, what arguments do you think they would use? what rebuttals would they give to my arguments?

You can find that out as easily as me mush. Email the NRA and ask them why they can't win.

all i want to hear is the arguments. tell me why your position is reasonable. tell me why it's right.

As I said mush, I'm no lawyer. And neither are you. Clearly the vast bulk of lawyers disagree with you on this issue. If you think you have a case, take it to the Supreme court. I'm sure the NRA will fund you if they think you are a good enough cause.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263089 -

Quote:
So a bunker isn't a hole in the ground?


No. It's a structure in the ground.


Quote:
Was he down a hole in the ground or not?


No, he was not.


Quote:
You have repeatedly refused to accept WMD arn't there.


Wrong again liar. I have merely stated that the inability to find them is not proof. Look up the difference. There is one. You're just not man enough to admit it.


Quote:
What evidence did you have that WMD were there in the first place? You have played dodgeball whenever you were called on this.


Actually oh dishonest one, the dodging came from you when I asked you to show me where I made such a claim.


Quote:
As I said, in the world of honest men, evidence comes BEFORE a claim.


Sadly, honest is something you'll never be accused of being.


Quote:
Are you talking to the mirror now luvdemlies?


Weak, but that's to be expected of you.


Quote:
Then why have you spent 9 months refusing to accept they arn't there?


A pre-schooler seems to have a better level of comprehension than do you. I've merely pointed out your lack of comprehension of the English language. And of course the fact that if it wasn't for lies, you'd have little left.

Sad, because a liar is a contemptuous person who merely wastes air when they breath.

Unless of course you'll finally back up where I claim they exist?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Evolving]
    #2263098 -

Evolving said:
Still playing dodge ball Alex?


Of course he is. The man doesn't have the balls of a newborn.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263101 -

Quote:
Then why are the NRA still trying to overturn their ruling?


So last week they weren't even trying. This week they are trying.

What will it be next week PinocchiALPO?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2263102 -

or will he continue hiding behind the unsupported authority of a politically-charged (and disagreeing) body of bureaucrats?

So the US judicial system and supreme court is a hotbed of communists all determind to keep the NRA down? Must admit I've never considered the US supreme court to contain too many anarchists. If it was long-haired drug-using commie anarchists disagreeing with you then maybe I'd think "Old mush might have a point". But when it's lawyers and judges throwing your case out time and time again I've got grave doubts.

i'll take just about any odds on the latter.

Well I'm definately gonna continue to have more faith in the countless lawyers and judges who have considered this in courtrooms for decades than some kid on a shroom board who has never proved anything to a court in his life. Do you blame me?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263116 -

Quote:
Do you blame me?


When you are honest enough to not post out of context snippets, and actually read the decisions, maybe you'll realize what crap you're trying to pass.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263508 -

You mean the vast bulk of lawyers advising the Supreme court and US judicial system for the last 100 years?

who are these lawyers you speak of? who are some of these "legal" experts? can you name a few? can you show me what reasoning they used to arrive at their decisions?

They were all in on some communist conspiracy?

huh?

Why do you think they don't agree with you?

some of them do actually (as i've repeatedly shown you). i'd like to know why some disagree with me, but no rationale is ever given for their interpretation of the militia clause, save a reference or two to the cruikshank, miller, or presser cases (so far as i'm aware. if there is a good rational explanation for their decisions, i'd like to see it. is there one? where might i find it?).

Do you really need me to find you the lawyers and judges who have served on the US supreme court for the last 100 years?

no. what i would like to see is just one who agrees with your interpretation of the militia clause and can explain why.

Then why are the NRA still trying to overturn their ruling?

the NRA is not trying to overturn the rulings in the 3 cases i'm referring to.

Where did you study law mush? Clearly the judge doesn't agree with you.

sigh. you needn't have studied law to understand the meaning of...

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence... The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed"

US v. Cruikshank (1876)


"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

US. v. Miller (1939)


"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."

Presser v. The People of Illinois (1886)

You mean apart from the 68 pages..

please alex. if it was 68 pages of a case of why the militia clause means that the second amendment doesn't guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms, i'd be busy working on it, or perhaps maybe even reconsidering my position. if you actually read the document though, it is nothing of the sort. it is 68 pages of legalese, little of which has to do with the judges interpretation of the second amendment and his justification for the interpretation. in fact, the only justifaction (as i said before) is a citation of the cruikshank, presser, and miller cases, cases which we have seen in no way support his assertion about the militia clause.


You can find that out as easily as me mush. Email the NRA and ask them why they can't win.

As I said mush, I'm no lawyer. And neither are you. Clearly the vast bulk of lawyers disagree with you on this issue. If you think you have a case, take it to the Supreme court. I'm sure the NRA will fund you if they think you are a good enough cause.

so what you mean to say is that you don't know what arguments they would use, and you don't know what responses they would have for mine... you don't know why your "experts" are right, just that you agree with them, and that's good enough...

come on alex. let's talk about the militia clause. let's talk about the second amendment. you seem so sure of what it means, but you don't seem to have any reason for your beliefs than the testimony of a bunch of "experts"... this would be fine i suppose if they had some arguments in support of their assertions, and you could point us in the direction of some of those arguments, but alas, you cannot. with so many legal experts agreeing with you on such a simple issue, shouldn't it be quite easy for you to find an actual argument in support of your assertions? i'd really love to see it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263525 -

So the US judicial system and supreme court is a hotbed of communists all determind to keep the NRA down?

i'll have to check, but i don't think i said anything of the sort. hey everyone, did i say that, or is alex being a deceitful strawman builder?

and alex... why the continued references to the supreme court? some of the opinions to have come out of the supreme court are pretty damning to your assertion about how "countless legal experts" agree with you.

Must admit I've never considered the US supreme court to contain too many anarchists. If it was long-haired drug-using commie anarchists disagreeing with you then maybe I'd think "Old mush might have a point". But when it's lawyers and judges throwing your case out time and time again I've got grave doubts.

what the hell are you talking about?

Well I'm definately gonna continue to have more faith in the countless lawyers and judges who have considered this in courtrooms for decades than some kid on a shroom board who has never proved anything to a court in his life. Do you blame me?

of course not. you agree with them.

(questions for alex... how many is "countless"? how many judges and lawyers have expressed support for your view of the militia clause? how many for mine? what reasoning has been offered by either side?)

if you want to talk about "experts" on the second amendment, here's an opinion from the ultimate expert on the subject:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

- Federalist #46, James Madison (the guy that wrote the bill of rights).

i think that pretty much clarifies who the militia is, what role they may play, and whether or not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" really does mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263544 -

by what reasoning do you think your "legal experts" come to their conclusions about the militia clause and what it means in the second amendment? if their conclusions are valid, they must be based on sound logical reasoning. are their conclusions based on reason? what are the logical arguments for arriving at their conclusions?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2263788 -

This thread is going nowhere. The same questions are being asked and dodged over and over again. This is about the tenth time I have seen this issue covered in this forum in the last year, by the same people.

Mushmaster, you've been here long enough to know you'll get no more "answers" to your questions than have appeared here already. It's probably best to let it go.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Phred]
    #2263811 -

i want to see what the response is to my last post. if it looks as though there might be some honest debate about the militia clause, then it might be worth continuing. if there is only more talk of "legal experts", without arguments in support of their conclusions, it probably won't be.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2263843 -

Let's be kind people, english may not be alex's native language.. might not understand all the words we're saying.


I'm still waiting for an explanation why many judges in the south chose to uphold 'Equal but Seperate' as a valid practice. Were the judges correct? Aren't judges infalliable? You've made the argument that they are, essentially. And if judges are infalliable, were they right in regards to 'Equal but Seperate'?
What about abortion, eh? It was illegal, and then it wasn't! And drugs, boy howdy, those are sure illegal, I'm sure the Supreme Court would agree, and they must be right in everything they do, because they're infalliable and blacks and mexicans should use seperate facilities?

I'm bating a bit. I certainly hope I made it thick enough you could tell. It is a valid question in that mire, though, that does deserve an answer.. i so hope it includes anarchists and hippie communists


--------------------
i finally got around to making a sig
revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might
grar.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265512 -

can you name a few? can you show me what reasoning they used to arrive at their decisions?

You can find those as easy as me mush.

huh?

The US judicial system has rejected your position unanimously for at least the last 60 years, why have they done this?

some of them do actually

You have a Supreme court judgement supporting your position?

(as i've repeatedly shown you).

No, you've repeatedly picked single lines out of context.

the NRA is not trying to overturn the rulings in the 3 cases i'm referring to.

So the NRA are happy that the Supreme Court utterly and unanimously rejects the theory that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own guns?

Fair enough. So what's the problem?

sigh. you needn't have studied law to understand the meaning of...

This is where we differ mush. I think you DO need to have studied law to understand the 200 years of history and reasoning behind these cases.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." US vs Miller

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

See how easy it is to pick lines out of court cases to support your position mush?

Here's an interesting read:

Exploding the NRA second amendment mythology

so what you mean to say is that you don't know what arguments they would use, and you don't know what responses they would have for mine... you don't know why your "experts" are right, just that you agree with them, and that's good enough...

No mush, if you can find me convincing legal reasoning from experts to support your position I'd been a little more open to your position. But at the moment you're like a guy in the pub saying "Dude, I can PROVE the special theory of relativity is wrong man, even tho all those scientists for the last 100 years disagree with me man..Look..". I'm not a physicist and wouldn't claim to know enough about the special theory of relativity to "prove" him wrong, but I know damn sure it's pretty unlikely he's right.

but you don't seem to have any reason for your beliefs than the testimony of a bunch of "experts"

Isn't the testimony of experts a pretty good way of reaching conclusions?

come on alex. let's talk about the militia clause.

Why? I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. We're two guys on a shroom board. If your position held any water you'd be taking it through the courts right now and making yourself a multi-millionaire.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265539 -

i'll have to check, but i don't think i said anything of the sort.

Then explain to us why they keep rejecting your position?

what the hell are you talking about?

You keep referring to "politically charged groups of men" as a reason for why the courts don't agree with you. What the hell are YOU on about?

I guessed you meant they were all "communists" or "leftists" because they reject your position. I'm pointing out that you don't get too many communists sitting on the Supreme Court.

i think that pretty much clarifies who the militia is, what role they may play, and whether or not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" really does mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Nope, it doesn't even begin to. If it did the courts would have accepted your position decades ago. Here's another viewpoint that shatters your "clarified position":

NRA MYTH 2:
Since the "Militia" in the Second Amendment consists of "the whole people," the Amendment guarantees everyone the right to keep and bear arms.

RESPONSE:
The original colonial militia did not include everyone. Rather, it included able-bodied adult males between the ages of 18 and 45. The militia was always an organized state-sponsored military force, not simply an ad hoc collection of armed citizens.

EXPLANATION:
When the NRA is forced to address the militia language in the Amendment, it seriously distorts the nature of the "well regulated Militia." In the NRA's view, the term "militia" is synonymous with the general citizenry. The NRA relies on quotations from colonial leaders like George Mason indicating that the "militia" consists of "the whole people."

Membership in the 18th century militia generally consisted of able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45. Thus, the militia was never composed of the entire population, as the NRA sometimes suggests. Moreover, to say that the "militia" is simply a collection of armed citizens is to misrepresent the original militia concept.

The colonial militia was an organized military force whose members were subject to various legal requirements imposed by the colonies and then by the states. For instance, militiamen were required by law to muster for training several days a year and to supply their own equipment for militia use, including guns and horses. (The personal arms of the militiamen were supplemented by militia arms from government armories.) The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment reinforces the idea of an organized military force subject to state governmental control. In sum, the militia in 18th century America was a form of compulsory military service imposed upon much of the male population or, to borrow a phase from the late Chief Justice Warren Burger, a "state army." (See Appendix B, Article by Justice Burger.)

The Second Amendment was a product of the colonists' deep distrust of "standing armies" ? permanent military forces composed of professional soldiers. The use of troops by George III to compel obedience to the Crown's burdensome taxes and laws reinforced this distrust. These colonists saw the state militia ? a part-time military force composed of ordinary citizens ? as an effective counterpoint to the power of the federal standing army. Thus, the concern of the Second Amendment was the distribution of military power between the states and the federal government. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to preclude the federal government from enacting laws which would disarm the state militia.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265590 -

You can find those as easy as me mush.

you're the one making the claim, so you're the one who must provide the proof. that's how burden of proof works in an argument. plus, i've never seen them before, and you presumably have, so it will probably be easier for you to find them anyway.


The US judicial system has rejected your position unanimously for at least the last 60 years, why have they done this?

that's what i'm asking you...


You have a Supreme court judgement supporting your position?

yes. i've cited them at least 3 times now. see the cruikshank, miller, and presser cases.

So the NRA are happy that the Supreme Court utterly and unanimously rejects the theory that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own guns?

that isn't what the supreme court did in those rulings. see the cruikshank, miller, and presser cases.

This is where we differ mush. I think you DO need to have studied law to understand the 200 years of history and reasoning behind these cases.

please read the texts i cited. the meaning is clear as day.

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

yes, but the miller case also affirmed that: the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.". so if the miller case said that the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure the vitality of the miltia, that's fine, because it also said that the militia is comprised of ALL males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. thus, ANY reference to the "militia" in the miller decision is referring to ALL able-bodies males capable of acting in concert for the common defense. it does NOT mean solely the national guard.

No mush, if you can find me convincing legal reasoning from experts to support your position I'd been a little more open to your position. But at the moment you're like a guy in the pub saying "Dude, I can PROVE the special theory of relativity is wrong man, even tho all those scientists for the last 100 years disagree with me man..Look..".

i see. so it is indeed a blind appeal to authority. you don't know why they're right... you don't understand (or can even give an example of) the actual arguments they use, but you just know they're right on this one because they're judges and i am not...

What problem do you have with the testimony of experts mush? Isn't the testimony of experts a pretty good way of reaching conclusions?

not if :

1. all the experts don't agree.
2. the testimony is not backed up with some sort of reasoning.

Why? I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. We're two guys on a shroom board. If your position held any water you'd be taking it through the courts right now and making yourself a multi-millionaire.

and if your position held any water, you wouldn't be so reluctant to discuss it openly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265619 -

you're the one making the claim, so you're the one who must provide the proof.

Start with the article I posted and research from there. There are at least 30 court cases that have rejected your position. Have you read any of them?

that's what i'm asking you...

Because you're wrong.

That's why I think all the judgements go against you mush. Because you're wrong.

Now why do YOU think it is?

yes. i've cited them at least 3 times now. see the cruikshank, miller, and presser cases.

Come again? What exactly are you saying the judgement of these court cases was?

they're right on this one because they're judges and i am not...

Sorry mush, but on a question of law I'm gonna trust 60 years of judges and lawyers than an NRA kid on a shroom board.

and if your position held any water, you wouldn't be so reluctant to discuss it openly.

What do you want me to discuss? I believe the second amendment refers to a militia, not individuals. The only reason I'm reluctant to spend weeks debating the fine points of this is because I'm not a lawyer and havn't spent years studying the legal history behind it. You seem to have more confidence in your own opinion than lawyers and judges who have spent their lives studying this. I don't.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265669 -

ok... now we're talking about the militia. this is good. most of what is written in the description you found is actually pretty good.

the militia was, and was intended to be, a locally controlled (but still controlled) military force. the purpose was to provide an additional fighting force in the event of an invasion, or an opposing force in the event of the rise of federal tyranny. miltias were not just ragtag posses of men with guns, but state-controlled forces of citizen soldiers.

but in order for the militia system to work, the people must be armed. they must have their own weapons if they were to present themselves for military service as citizen soldiers. this was one important reason for preserving the right of the people to keep arms. it would not be correct to say that this wasn't one of the strongest reasons for prohibiting the federal government from disarming the populace. the second amendment (as we are all aware) even mentions this reason explicitly. however, this isn't the only reason, and what's more, even if it was, it would still not mean that the second amendment did not preserve the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. a person needn't have been currently serving in a militia in order to keep and bear arms, but only "able-bodied male" who could potentially be called to serve in the militia. the second amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... one important reason being to provide a body of potential citizen soldiers to fight against foreign invaders or federal tyranny.

(as a side note, i find it interesting that the original draft of the second amendment specified that there could be no compulsory military service. it was removed in the final draft).

i've never been one to found my belief in my right to keep arms on the second amendment alone. the second amendment does not exist to grant citizens with any rights. it exists only to prohibit the government from trampling on them. the right of people to keep arms for defensive purposes pre-exists the second amendment, or any other body of law. had the second amendment never been drafted, we would still have the same right to arms that we have always had.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265688 -

Alex, since you don't seem to be able to think for yourself and always appeal to a higher authority, I'm sure you will agree with U.S. Magistrate Bristow Marchant when he fined Brett Bursey for carrying a protest sign at a Bush rally....

Check out the story here.

You see Alex, your slavish appeal to authority can also work against the First Amendment. Dictators and potential dictators LOVE your attitude.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Evolving]
    #2265704 -

Well, I'll break the habit and deign you with a reply evol..if there was any evidence of the last 60 years of second amendment judgements being politically motivated you might have a point. But as I've pointed out to mush, you don't tend to get many communist anarchists on the Supreme Court. My guess is you get fairly establishment figures who, if anything, would have sympathy with the NRA. The fact that even they reject the NRA's position is very telling.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Evolving]
    #2265715 -

i recall a time from my youth, when i was speaking with a man about the heavans. his belief was that the earth was not the center of the planetary system, but the sun was! and after everything the priests were telling us... i couldn't believe it. now, he showed me his calculations and everything, but i being no wise man in these matters, and him certainly being no authority, i could not believe what he was saying. i mean... the authorities... the priests had been saying for ages that the earth was the center of the universe... what do i know? who was this guy with his telescope and calculations? who knows.. but i wasn't going to just believe him over what the priests were saying. to hell with his calculations and reasons. if he was indeed right, he would take it up with the priests, right?

:wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265720 -

Quote:
Alex123 said:
..if there was any evidence of the last 60 years of second amendment judgements being politically motivated you might have a point.


Oh there is evidence, the rulings in the last 60 years are different than those that preceeded them. Why do you limit yourself to the last 60 years? Why don't you look at rulings closer to the beggining of the republic?

Quote:
But as I've pointed out to mush, you don't tend to get many communist anarchists on the Supreme Court.


So you made an silly statement. This does not advance your argument, nor have you rationally addressed mushmaster's arguments. Try again.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265723 -

And you're the one insisting the sun goes round the earth and everyone else must be wrong... :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265732 -

hah!

touche.

you know alex.. you can actually be quite clever when you aren't disagreeing with me....  :tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265753 -

I'm exhausted with this one anyway mush. You've got some fair points, maybe in 20 years time the judges will be on your side :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2266445 -

Quote:
I'm exhausted with this one anyway mush.


Good. Watching you here was like watching a lousy fighter get his ass kicked long after he should have fallen down and cried uncle.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 dee_N_ae 14,225 131 09/19/02 01:08 PM
by francisco
* The 2nd Amendment Anonymous 667 2 08/02/03 10:31 PM
by Anonymous
* Sen. Santorum Defends Remarks in Gay Court Case I_Fart_Blue 772 1 04/23/03 02:19 PM
by wingnutx
* Which amendment to the bill of rights is your favorite?
( 1 2 all )		 Senor_Doobie 2,568 34 01/30/03 10:52 AM
by Sinistar
* Supreme court and Cross Burning
( 1 2 all )		 JohnnyRespect 2,227 31 04/21/03 02:41 PM
by JohnnyRespect
* Flag Burning Amendment ToTheSummit 2,192 19 08/02/01 01:21 PM
by Beery
* Congrats Luvdemshrroms and Alex123 Innvertigo 647 7 02/19/03 11:14 PM
by Innvertigo
* Supreme Court Legalized Child Porn.
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,194 31 06/08/02 02:59 AM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,564 topic views. 4 members, 3 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.05 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.