Stop and Frisk

[rushmc 23]

Actually
If you care to look back at my other posts regarding your angle

you would see I argued as the founders did.

this topic has come up when others said, "well, the founders could not have imagined the fully automatic weapons and fire power we have today". And actually, this is not true
If one takes the time to read what they wrote, part of their argument was to have the people be in possession of weapons common at that time. This concept would easily extend to today. And then the debate would become, are tanks and F18"s common. common or not, I could not afford one round for a tank

Could you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

quade

I don't think the Supreme Court ought to work like that. I think the Supreme Court ought to be unbiased and fair arbiters of the Constitution; not ideologues beholding to the party of the President who put them in power.

this ^

and the vetting process is great - where Senators and Congressmen tell the candidates that they 'make the law'

and they ask the candidates what their personal opinions on partisan topics are to see if they pass their 'litmus' tests rather than probe the candidates about their ability to set aside those opinions in lieu of objectivity


objectivity has no actual reality in the vetting process at all - we can maybe thank FDR for that


luckily we got objective judges so far from our current leader to show the way

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

jclalor

If the intent of the 2nd was for the population to be able to keep a tyrannical government in check, why do you not argue for the right to own Abrams, Howitzers, and f-18's?

There's no if, unless you're a liar.

People can and do own tanks and canons. Along with P51s. There is some private ownership of jets including the F-4, F-86, F-104, L-39, and a few Migs up to the -21. I just read that Canada has been selling their old F18As, and that Ebay had a Blue Angel F18 listed. The costs are fairly prohibitive for most of us, as well as the infrastructure to maintain them.

http://xpda.com/f18ebay/ - just 32M bucks! Back in 2004.

You should revisit the Miller decision, which many people have misread for decades. It concludes that one should be able to obtain weapons similar to that of the infantrymen, suitable for use in battle. The case was over a sawed off shotgun. Miller would have been able to argue for its suitability in military situations (easy argument post Vietnam) but had died before the SC made its decision.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

"Perfectly clear" wordings do not get 5/4 opinions

That statement does not fit with this diatribe of yours:

"And it especially sucks when it falls right along ideological lines.

I don't think the Supreme Court ought to work like that. I think the Supreme Court ought to be unbiased and fair arbiters of the Constitution; not ideologues beholding to the party of the President who put them in power.

I'm not saying it's always the case, but you start looking at enough 5/4 decisions and it sure as hell looks that way.

It sucks for the country because what it means is fairness isn't being decided; it means decisions are de facto being made by other decisions made possibly 20 or more years previous and swing based on the possible happenstance death and reappointment of another ideologue"

So is this a case of ideologues, or is it not 'perfectly clear'?

[quade 4]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If it were "perfectly clear" then it would be more difficult for ideologues to hide behind their opinions and interpretations.

That's part of the problem with the wording of the 2nd.

For instance, let's say you wanted to know if a person was eligible to run for President based on his age. The part of the Constitution that covers that is 100% "perfectly clear." An ideologue could in no way give a legitimately supported by the Constitution opinion saying a 19-year-old is somehow eligible.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If the intent of the 2nd was for the population to be able to keep a tyrannical government in check, why do you not argue for the right to own Abrams, Howitzers, and f-18's?

There is no "if" - It was the intent. All you have to do to prove that to yourself is to read history and the works of the Founding Fathers.

I have asked this before and people ignored it, so I ask again.... Find ONE quote from a Founding Father that thinks citizens should not be allowed to own military weapons.

F18 for sale: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/17/content_306823.htm

http://xpda.com/f18ebay/

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That's part of the problem with the wording of the 2nd.

And I ask, again... Find me ONE comment from a founding father saying that citizens should not be allowed to own weapons.... ONE.

[quade 4]

DaVinci

Quote

That's part of the problem with the wording of the 2nd.

And I ask, again... Find me ONE comment from a founding father saying that citizens should not be allowed to own weapons.... ONE.

It doesn't matter what ANYBODY said outside of the words actually written into the Constitution itself.

THAT'S the problem.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Here let me attempt to illustrate a point.

You and I get together and decide we're going to form a corporation. Let's say we write some emails back and forth about the details of the corporation, how we intend it to run, who's going to be in charge, who's going to decide who gets what parking space in front of the office, etc.

THEN . . . I draw up a contract between us.

What holds up in court? Our emails or the actual contract we sign?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

***

Quote

That's part of the problem with the wording of the 2nd.

And I ask, again... Find me ONE comment from a founding father saying that citizens should not be allowed to own weapons.... ONE.

It doesn't matter what ANYBODY said outside of the words actually written into the Constitution itself.

THAT'S the problem.
No
You are creating a problem where it does not exist

The words in the Constitution are what they were debating
The exact words
The intent is absolutely clear

You are creating what you need to keep you from manning up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Here let me attempt to illustrate a point.

You and I get together and decide we're going to form a corporation. Let's say we write some emails back and forth about the details of the corporation, how we intend it to run, who's going to be in charge, who's going to decide who gets what parking space in front of the office, etc.

THEN . . . I draw up a contract between us.

What holds up in court? Our emails or the actual contract we sign?

If the contract is vague on a key issue of dispute, absolutely those emails would be introduced as evidence. So would verbal conversations, with the key problem that they are harder to confirm as correct, make for poor evidence.

The problem with authenticating verbal conversations is why for many large dollar transactions, a written contract is required. But just because they don't list out all of the reasons for choices made doesn't mean that you can pretend those conversations weren't important or true.

[Bignugget 0]

rushmc

Actually
If you care to look back at my other posts regarding your angle

you would see I argued as the founders did.

this topic has come up when others said, "well, the founders could not have imagined the fully automatic weapons and fire power we have today". And actually, this is not true
If one takes the time to read what they wrote, part of their argument was to have the people be in possession of weapons common at that time. This concept would easily extend to today. And then the debate would become, are tanks and F18"s common. common or not, I could not afford one round for a tank

Could you?

Boom.

Rush just came up on the solution.

Lets just price guns out of food stamp range and we will be able to list them with F-18's, tanks, and nukes.

Shit he should have a right to, but can't afford.

[rushmc 23]

Bignugget

***Actually
If you care to look back at my other posts regarding your angle

you would see I argued as the founders did.

this topic has come up when others said, "well, the founders could not have imagined the fully automatic weapons and fire power we have today". And actually, this is not true
If one takes the time to read what they wrote, part of their argument was to have the people be in possession of weapons common at that time. This concept would easily extend to today. And then the debate would become, are tanks and F18"s common. common or not, I could not afford one round for a tank

Could you?

Boom.

Rush just came up on the solution.

Lets just price guns out of food stamp range and we will be able to list them with F-18's, tanks, and nukes.

Shit he should have a right to, but can't afford.

Now we are in your wheel house

Tax tax tax

Spoken like a true big government liberal

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bignugget 0]

rushmc

******Actually
If you care to look back at my other posts regarding your angle

you would see I argued as the founders did.

this topic has come up when others said, "well, the founders could not have imagined the fully automatic weapons and fire power we have today". And actually, this is not true
If one takes the time to read what they wrote, part of their argument was to have the people be in possession of weapons common at that time. This concept would easily extend to today. And then the debate would become, are tanks and F18"s common. common or not, I could not afford one round for a tank

Could you?

Boom.

Rush just came up on the solution.

Lets just price guns out of food stamp range and we will be able to list them with F-18's, tanks, and nukes.

Shit he should have a right to, but can't afford.

Now we are in your wheel house

Tax tax tax

Spoken like a true big government liberal


It's the tax on F-18's you can't afford?

[rushmc 23]

Bignugget

*********Actually
If you care to look back at my other posts regarding your angle

you would see I argued as the founders did.

this topic has come up when others said, "well, the founders could not have imagined the fully automatic weapons and fire power we have today". And actually, this is not true
If one takes the time to read what they wrote, part of their argument was to have the people be in possession of weapons common at that time. This concept would easily extend to today. And then the debate would become, are tanks and F18"s common. common or not, I could not afford one round for a tank

Could you?

Boom.

Rush just came up on the solution.

Lets just price guns out of food stamp range and we will be able to list them with F-18's, tanks, and nukes.

Shit he should have a right to, but can't afford.

Now we are in your wheel house

Tax tax tax

Spoken like a true big government liberal


It's the tax on F-18's you can't afford?

Well
I could not afford the sales tax on it, let alone the price

My point was, to see your price guns out of reach nirvana, you would have to tax them because it does not cost that much to build and market them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

quade

Here let me attempt to illustrate a point.

You and I get together and decide we're going to form a corporation. Let's say we write some emails back and forth about the details of the corporation, how we intend it to run, who's going to be in charge, who's going to decide who gets what parking space in front of the office, etc.

THEN . . . I draw up a contract between us.

What holds up in court? Our emails or the actual contract we sign?

Both.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 2]

turtlespeed

***Here let me attempt to illustrate a point.

You and I get together and decide we're going to form a corporation. Let's say we write some emails back and forth about the details of the corporation, how we intend it to run, who's going to be in charge, who's going to decide who gets what parking space in front of the office, etc.

THEN . . . I draw up a contract between us.

What holds up in court? Our emails or the actual contract we sign?

Both.

It depends.

Send me $1,500 via paypal and I'll tell you what it depends on.

[Kennedy 0]

I'd guess it depends on what you can prove was said before signing and who can afford more and better attorneys.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Kennedy

... and who can afford more and better attorneys.

And does THAT sound like the basis of a fair democracy?

Hmmm...

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

You're reminding me off all kinds of sayings that've become nothing but platitudes.
- the law was designed as a shield, not a sword
- it's the worst system in the world, except for all the others
Etc, etc

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rehmwa 2]

Kennedy

You're reminding me off all kinds of sayings that've become nothing but platitudes.
- the law was designed as a shield, not a sword
- it's the worst system in the world, except for all the others
Etc, etc

"good enough for government work"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,121]

DaVinci

Quote

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

Oh look, personal attacks. Mods, I thought these were not allowed?

***Still doesn't mention defending the people. It gives a right to the people in order to secure the free state.

Ah no. It says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

"A", not "the"



Makes NO DIFFERENCE to the rebuttal to rushmc's incorrect statement. In fact, you are agreeing with me. The REASON is not the same as the METHOD. Rushmc confused the two.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,121]

DaVinci

Quote

If you're going to invoke a court OPINION then you should also remember that the same court said the 2nd is not an unlimited right etc. etc. etc.

Then you might want to remember that they RULED it was an INDIVIDUAL right and that self defense was protected:

Maybe you can provide a link to ANY post where I have claimed otherwise. Perhaps your memory is not as good as mine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,121]

rushmc

***If the intent of the 2nd was for the population to be able to keep a tyrannical government in check, why do you not argue for the right to own Abrams, Howitzers, and f-18's?

I would
but I cant afford them

Some people CAN afford jet fighters. However, the armament has to be removed.

Seems to rebut your position.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,121]

kelpdiver

***If the intent of the 2nd was for the population to be able to keep a tyrannical government in check, why do you not argue for the right to own Abrams, Howitzers, and f-18's?

There's no if, unless you're a liar.

People can and do own tanks and canons. Along with P51s. There is some private ownership of jets including the F-4, F-86, F-104, L-39, and a few Migs up to the -21. I just read that Canada has been selling their old F18As, and that Ebay had a Blue Angel F18 listed. The costs are fairly prohibitive for most of us, as well as the infrastructure to maintain them.

http://xpda.com/f18ebay/ - just 32M bucks! Back in 2004.

You should revisit the Miller decision, which many people have misread for decades. It concludes that one should be able to obtain weapons similar to that of the infantrymen, suitable for use in battle. The case was over a sawed off shotgun. Miller would have been able to argue for its suitability in military situations (easy argument post Vietnam) but had died before the SC made its decision.

RPGs, mortars, and hand grenades are infantry weapons. have they been judged to be legal for "the people" to own?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.