second amendment is a fundamental right?

Piezoe I have played this game with you many times and I know you will come back to this argument and act like what you wrote has been accepted.

So I apologize to others for my lack of graciousness during this we all agree that AAA stated it correctly when he said there is "wiggle room" moment.


But Piezoe do you now agree you overstated the case against ARs per the Heller decision when you wrote this...


"Banning semi-automatic assault rifles and large ammo clips, for example, according to Heller, would not violate our Second amendment rights. This is a key point that many, should I go as far as to say the "majority', of gun rights advocates obviously do not understand. The reason these types of semi-automatic firearms are not off the self is political and not because a ban would violate anyone's second amendment rights. Heller is very clear on this."
 
jem said:
But Piezoe do you now agree you overstated the case against ARs per the Heller decision when you wrote this...
More...
No. I stand by exactly what I wrote. I disassociate myself from your interpretation of what I wrote.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry you were never associated with my interpretation of what you wrote because mine involves "common use" of words.

your use of words somehow equates a "Banning semi automatic assault rifles" to wiggle room.

I can see why you got so agitated when I asked you for a citation to a page.


piezoe said:
No. I stand by exactly what I wrote. I disassociate myself from your interpretation of what I wrote.
More...
 
jimmiebarton said:
there is no "and" conjunction in there..

it's obvious they meant the right of the people to bear arms in a "well regulated militia".

BOTH conditions must be present or there is no "right" to arms. "the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia to secure the nation.

obviously referring to the nation's armed forces.

says nothing about the right of an individualist unregulated to bear arms. nothing. both conditions must be presnty
More...

It's possible (imho) that the amendment refers to a "militia". But if if does, it refers to a militia that secures the
peoples rights, and not the power of the state. The amendment is about freedom, anyway you read it.
 
But then, when the Constitution says "We the People", it is normally understood in an individual sense, meaning every person. But when the 2nd Admendment says "the right of the people", some interpret that as not every person (i.e. a militia, etc). What gives ?
 
kandlekid said:
It's possible (imho) that the amendment refers to a "militia". But if if does, it refers to a militia that secures the
peoples rights, and not the power of the state. The amendment is about freedom, anyway you read it.
More...
Your interpretation is nicely aligned with Justice Scalia's interpretation which is based on "originalism". If you haven't done it yet, you would no doubt like to read The Heller Opinion in regard to the extensive discussion of the prefatory clause. I certainly am not one to champion the originalist, nor the strict constructionist, approach to modern law. I believe if a Justice is rigid in adhering to either of this two principles in reading the law, and in particular two-hundred-year-old law written at a time when nothing moved faster than a horse, that they will freeze our Constitution in time and by so doing cause its unnecessary obsolescence. Fortunately, originalist Scalia wasn't consistent. He was the originalist when it suited his purpose and he had nothing better to fall back on. This trait must have exasperated his colleagues, but thankfully he wasn't rigid in applying his, as it turned out, rather 'flexible' principles. In his time on the court, he was by far our most colorful judge.
 
Its seems you are bad mouthing a Supreme Court judge who tried to stick to the constitution. Something Supreme Court judges are sworn to do.

Here is a thought experiment like Ricters but not...

Lets not say we have 9 sotomayors or brenans or pick your lefty great right?
But its 40 years from now and we still have barrack Obama on the court and 5 other pro sharia law judges.

Would you be happy when they decide that everyone has to turn in their guns and non knives.
Would you be happy when they say its OK for the govt to after the tea party? And born agains.
What about when they promote Sharia law.
What about when they declare that no one may criticize Sharia law
What about when they declare thought crimes against the prophet to be punishable by death.
What about when they say all atheists must pay a jizra or go to guantanamo?

Or would you prefer our Supreme Court try and stick with the Constitution and what it meant when it was written.

Can you imagine what would happen to gay people if we did have justices who feel compelled to follow the constitution and feel the Constiution is a living document like Obama says and must allow for Sharia Law. Oh wait... we do know what would happen to gays and Christians and jews.





piezoe said:
Your interpretation is nicely aligned with Justice Scalia's interpretation which is based on "originalism". If you haven't done it yet, you would no doubt like to read The Heller Opinion in regard to the extensive discussion of the prefatory clause. I certainly am not one to champion the originalist, nor the strict constructionist, approach to modern law. I believe if a Justice is rigid in adhering to either of this two principles in reading the law, and in particular two-hundred-year-old law written at a time when nothing moved faster than a horse, that they will freeze our Constitution in time and by so doing cause its unnecessary obsolescence. Fortunately, originalist Scalia wasn't consistent. He was the originalist when it suited his purpose and he had nothing better to fall back on. This trait must have exasperated his colleagues, but thankfully he wasn't rigid in applying his, as it turned out, rather 'flexible' principles. In his time on the court, he was by far our most colorful judge.
More...
 
Last edited:
First we must identify weapons properly. The left is here to assist.
Guns.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top