Stop and Frisk

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

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

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

proper reading would tell you that this right is not there solely to secure the free state. Clearly Heller and the Court said otherwise as well.

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.

Yes, yes, we know you like to reach back to this nugget whenever you step on your own dick. But it has no relevance to your false claim that English grammar supports the assertion that the explanatory clause in the 2nd is a restrictive one.

The SC left no doubt that the people have a right to handguns for purposes of self defense. The Federalist Papers (as well as the drafts of the 2nd at the Constitutional Convention, are even clear about the intent of those who wrote the language. Wishing it were otherwise does not change this.

[kallend 2,148]

kelpdiver

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

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

proper reading would tell you that this right is not there solely to secure the free state. Clearly Heller and the Court said otherwise as well.

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.

Yes, yes, we know you like to reach back to this nugget whenever you step on your own dick. But it has no relevance to your false claim that English grammar supports the assertion that the explanatory clause in the 2nd is a restrictive one.



STRAW MAN
I did not claim that. I simply wrote that it disproved rushmc's assertion. I made no claim whatever about restrictions.
.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

kallend

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

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

proper reading would tell you that this right is not there solely to secure the free state. Clearly Heller and the Court said otherwise as well.

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.

Yes, yes, we know you like to reach back to this nugget whenever you step on your own dick. But it has no relevance to your false claim that English grammar supports the assertion that the explanatory clause in the 2nd is a restrictive one.



STRAW MAN
I did not claim that. I simply wrote that it disproved rushmc's assertion. I made no claim whatever about restrictions.
.

Disproved???



That is a good one

and you claim yourself to be so edumacated

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

[kallend 2,148]

rushmc

Disproved???



That is a good one

and you claim yourself to be so edumacated

Are you taking lessons from the Black Knight?

...

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

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***

Disproved???



That is a good one

and you claim yourself to be so edumacated

Are you taking lessons from the Black Knight?

Nah
Just repying at your level
So you have a chance at understanding

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

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

What amazes me is how the word "militia" is somehow interpreted as "an individual."

It amazes me that some people stop reading after a comma.

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Basic English. The militia part is stating the REASON. The METHOD is the PEOPLE being able to retain arms.

I am amazed that you try to claim that every other right that says THE PEOPLE is an individual right, but suddenly claim collectivism on the second and ONLY on the 2nd.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (The reason) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (the method).

Really simple to anyone that does not have an agenda.....

Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled it is an individual right. So your argument is moot.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

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

Quote

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"

You might want to read it again.... Because you are substituting words... It seems it is the only way your opinion would carry any weight on this issue.

And as you like to say, the Supreme Court is the final say, and they ruled in Heller that self defense is supported by the 2nd.

Game- Set - Match.

[quade 4]

DaVinci

It amazes me that some people stop reading after a comma.

Ah, "the" comma. Which one and in which version of the 2nd.

See, this is the problem with the 2nd. The wording is so ambiguous the pro-gun folks had to start parsing commas which were or weren't there depending on the version you happened to be reading at the time.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

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:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

Then McDonald incorporated it to the States.

You have nothing but personal opinion. We have the Quotes from the Founding Fathers (Find ONE quote saying citizens should not be allowed), the Second itself (THE PEOPLE have the right), and the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Ah, "the" comma. Which one and in which version of the 2nd.

See, this is the problem with the 2nd. The wording is so ambiguous the pro-gun folks had to start parsing commas which were or weren't there depending on the version you happened to be reading at the time.

Actually no... It was you, the anti-gun folks, who try to play tricks with the placement of the commas.

As passed my Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The one thing that has NO commas is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Simply put your argument is the weakest possible. Anyone without an agenda and that can read English can tell you what that means.

But for fun....

A well educated electorate, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

or

A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Would you claim that it only allows people who vote to own and read books?

Would you claim that only books would be allowed and nothing on a E-Reader?

Would you claim that only small books would be allowed?

YOU brought up the comma and tried to claim it meant something. I just proved to you that it does not... Further the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.... so your argument is moot.

[quade 4]

DaVinci

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

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

And YOU should realize that was a 5/4 decision.

5/4 decisions suck ass because what they really mean is the decision could have easily gone the other way if a single judge held a different OPINION.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And YOU should realize that was a 5/4 decision.

And YOU should realize that was a 5/4 decision.

[jgoose71 0]

quade

And YOU should realize that was a 5/4 decision.

5/4 decisions suck ass because what they really mean is the decision could have easily gone the other way if a single judge held a different OPINION.

I suppose that in today's age, I should be glad that 5 out of the 9 SC judges can still read....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rhaig 0]

quade

Yes. A 5-4 decision is clear . . . as mud.

If it was 5-4 the other way, would you be as doubtful of the clarity of the court?

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

5/4 decisions suck ass because what they really mean is the decision could have easily gone the other way if a single judge held a different OPINION.

There have been many significant 5-4 decisions in our history. They still stand. For that matter, the VP has broken ties in the Senate many times. End result is the same as it would be with a 90-10 vote.

Backpedalling to "it could have gone the other way" doesn't really stand up as a debate method.

[quade 4]

rhaig

***Yes. A 5-4 decision is clear . . . as mud.

If it was 5-4 the other way, would you be as doubtful of the clarity of the court?

Yes. Stated so several times about several issues.

You can search for it if you'd like.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

I asked because I didn't recall. I have no reason to doubt.

You're right... A 5-4 decision sucks. And clearly nobody has to agree with anything they say. But just as the guy who graduates medical school last in his class is called doctor, a 5-4 decision is still a decision.

--
Rob

[quade 4]

rhaig

You're right... A 5-4 decision sucks.

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.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[OHCHUTE 0]

It's all going to come down to money. How long will the feds/ and states fund policing assholes that misbehave? Holder is advocating letting people out of jail. It's unsustainable funding all the policing. Besides, with inner city property values going through the roof, and low income folk being forced to move into white suburbs, via gov't subsidies (section 8 Housing) crime will only increase, where local gov't simply won't be able to deal with it.
And now whites are moving back downtown, if they can afford it-- NOT-- as expensive inner city housing is more expensive than what a suburb house could be sold for.

[quade 4]

OHCHUTE

It's all going to come down to money. How long will the feds/ and states fund policing assholes that misbehave?

I'm not convinced the individual police officers are at fault. But instead, simply the design of the program ends up making it racist.

It's a bit like our military in the Middle-East. Individually, the soldiers are honorable, but the policy that has them invading another country and killing innocent civilians is deplorable.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

***It amazes me that some people stop reading after a comma.

Ah, "the" comma. Which one and in which version of the 2nd.

See, this is the problem with the 2nd. The wording is so ambiguous the pro-gun folks had to start parsing commas which were or weren't there depending on the version you happened to be reading at the time.

the intent of the amendment is perfectly clear

It is dishonest to say otherwise as is inarguable. Except to be dishonest about the topic

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

[quade 4]

rushmc

the intent of the amendment is perfectly clear

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

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

***the intent of the amendment is perfectly clear

"Perfectly clear" wordings do not get 5/4 opinions.
No
But poitical agendas do however

You can site NOTHING from the founders that even comes anywhere close to supporting your assurtion
You are grabbing at straws because you got your ass handed to you on a plate regarding this subject

man up

admit it

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

[jclalor 12]

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?

[rushmc 23]

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?

I would
but I cant afford 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