"the 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right" - Barack Obama

[hack89]

can we all stop the militia shit?

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. K&R

[jmg257]

2. He's in with Scalia don't you know. nt

[jimmy the one]

3. cannot comply

hack: "the 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right" - Barack Obama

can we all stop the militia shit?

Yeah, obama said that (I haven't seen it in context tho, but I take your word); Obama said it because the supreme court 'legitimized' an individual right to keep/bear arms, in 2008. Obama would be denying the validity of the supreme court decision, & he can't do that as it is.
Even Al Gore said he respected the supreme court decision in 2000 which selected gwbush as president. It's not that gore agreed with Scotus, but he did it out of concern for national unity. Similar with obama.

.. I of course support the militia interpretation & don't intend on succumbing to the pack of lies which scalia & the duplicitous nra espoused to get the country into such gun violence to begin with.

So sorry, hack, cannot comply.

[hack89]

4. The Democratic Party platform says exactly the same thing.

stop the Scalia deflection.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. I'll leave the legal interpretation to others...

...as it's not my field. The linguistic analysis, however, is unequivocally in favor of the individual right interpretation. The structure of the language of the amendment simply cannot be validly parsed to restrict the right to the militia. The ascription of the right is made to the set "the people," not to the militia subset.

[jimmy the one]

7. Can't use the grammar ruse anymore, lizzie

lizzie: The linguistic analysis, however, is unequivocally in favor of the individual right interpretation. The structure of the language of the amendment simply cannot be validly parsed to restrict the right to the militia. The ascription of the right is made to the set "the people," not to the militia subset

.. the 2ndAmendment's grammar, is UNEQUIVOCALLY in favor of the individual interpretation?
Sorry, you can't use that ruse anymore, since scalia in 2008 heller ruled that:

According to Justice Scalia, the “militia” reference in the first part of the amendment simply “announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.”

See? scalia himself linked the two clauses, the individual RKBA clause (accd'g to him) was there to 'prevent elimination of the militia', which in itself shoots down your 'unequivocal interp of individual rkba' baloney.

But {scalia} added that this “prefatory statement of purpose” should not be interpreted to limit the meaning of what is called the operative clause — “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Instead, Justice Scalia said, the operative clause “codified a pre-existing right” of individual gun ownership for private use.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As I said you can't use that ruse anymore.
Furthermore, ms linguistics, note that scalia cited one wm rawle from 1825 as saying this:

Rawle, as quoted by scalia,2008: "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. ......
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Scalia ruled, 2008: "The Court based its reasoning on the grounds that the operative clause of the Second Amendment -- 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' -- is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons.."

There's the new conundrum scalia has put you in, ms linguistics, explain how the individual RKBA COROLLARY, controls the militia clause proposition, it is DERIVED FROM.
(A corollary by definition is derived from a higher proposition above it, a derived inference from a higher rule or law, IT CANNOT CONTROL THE PROPOSITION IT WAS DERIVED FROM)..

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. Ruse? Um...no.

And Scalia didn't put me in any sort of conundrum at all. First off, his description of the militia clause as the purpose of codification of the right is unsupportable by the language of the amendment. It is instead presented as constituting a purpose...but not the exclusive purpose.

Rawle commits a rather obvious denial of the antecedent fallacy in describing the operative clause as a "corollary." That antecedent relationship does allow the operative clause to control the preambulatory clause. You have their hierarchy reversed. This is reinforced by the rather obvious impossibility of even having a militia if the RKBA was not a pre-existing condition.

I'd say "nice try," but it wasn't, really...

[jimmy the one]

10. fallacies abound, from lizzie

lizzie the linguizt: Rawle commits a rather obvious denial of the antecedent fallacy in describing the operative clause as a "corollary." That antecedent relationship does allow the operative clause to control the preambulatory clause.

You obviously do not understand what a corollary is. And your double double talk talk doesn't impress, except surely rightwingnuts are smitten.
The 'antecedent relationship' is a scalia fabrication & doesn't comport whatsoever with what scalia cited rawle as saying.
It's hypocritical to claim that rawle is in denial in describing the individual 'operative' clause as a corollary, when it was SCALIA who cited rawle's passage to support his individual RKBA theory, which scalia claims rawle 'clearly supports'. (He's twisted rawle about unrecognizedly, as well as tucker & story at times.)

And Scalia didn't put me in any sort of conundrum at all. First off, his description of the militia clause as the purpose of codification of the right is unsupportable by the language of the amendment. It is instead presented as constituting a purpose...but not the exclusive purpose.

Let me get this straight. Scalia's description of the militia clause as codification of RKBA, is 'unsupportable' by the language of 2ndA itself? Rather the militia clause is merely 'a' purpose but not th 'exclusive' purpose, even tho it was the only 'purpose' mentioned in the 2ndA?
Can't stop laughing.

You have their hierarchy reversed. This is reinforced by the rather obvious impossibility of even having a militia if the RKBA was not a pre-existing condition.

Not when you consider the previous english bill of rights, from which scalia contends 2ndA was derived, which proclaimed 'individual' rights to belong to the english militia to defend the crown. Scalia here, in his errancy, misused the english bor & used his errant misinterpretation to validate the individual RKBA. Not supposed to be able to do dat.
The 'individual' mentioned in the english bill of rights at times, referred to an english individual right to belong to england's militia.

I'd say "nice try," but it wasn't, really...

coming from you das machts nichts, linguistics charlatan.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Please tell me you're making this up as you go along.

I'd hate to think you were actually taught something this daft and utterly ignorant. Do look up "denial of the antecedent" some time, though. You might learn something...stranger things have happened, I s'pose.

Ta ta...I'd continue this, but for two posts in a row, you can't manage not to indulge in unnecessary insult, etc. Enjoy the last word...I won't see it.

[Eleanors38]

32. I think Lizzie checkmated you. Your view is strained to the point of intellectual hernia.

[beevul]

11. Read the preamble jimmy. N/T

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Bullshit. He didn't seem to have a problem denying the validity of Citizens United.

And, he did it in no less a spectacular fashion than during the State of the Union address.

Try again.

[bubbayugga]

6. seems like he also affirmed self defense as a legitimate purpose of firearm ownership

"There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or protection, or collection.

What the heck was he thinking?

[jimmy the one]

8. is the jig up?

bubba: . seems like he also affirmed self defense as a legitimate purpose of firearm ownership

"There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or protection, or collection.

What the heck was he thinking?

I smell a plant.

I thought that I should never see, such rightwing democrats in my tree.

[DanTex]

12. Obama: "The type of assault rifle used in Aurora..."

So can we stop all the "it's not really an assault rifle" shit?

[gejohnston]

17. constitutional scholar doesn't equal firearms expert.

analogy fail.

[DanTex]

20. He's not speaking as a constitutional scholar, he's speaking as a politician.

I'm pretty sure he knows the history of the second amendment, but he figures, correctly, that going along with Scalia's re-interpretation is more likely to get his bill to pass. I don't have a problem with that, really.

[gejohnston]

21. If you really want to believe that,

I have no problem with that, really.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. LOL, is that the new grabber-meme for Obama's clear concise individual right affirmation? nt

[DanTex]

13. Obama: it’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun

Can we stop all this "commerce clause" shit?

[DanTex]

14. Obama: Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater.

Can we stop the "it's all just cosmetic" shit?

[gejohnston]

18. constitutional scholar doesn't equal firearms expert.

analogy fail.

[holdencaufield]

15. You won't see a stop to it because ...

... the ONLY hope they have of reversing the intent of the 2A is to hold out for a future date when a heavily-packed anti-gun court will overturn Heller. This is "keeping hope alive" in those who seek to repeal or castrate the 2A.

It's just like me going to the gym four days a week IN CASE I ever meet Mila Kunis. It COULD happen!

[DanTex]

16. Obama: "I started getting a lot of letters from kids. Four of them are here today"

Can we stop with the "gun controllers are bathing in the blood of children" shit?

[hack89]

23. Sure - why not. nt

[DanTex]

19. Obama: "We don’t benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence"

Can we stop with the "scientists have an anti-gun bias" shit?

[hack89]

24. Lets see what science they produce first. nt

[jimmy the one]

26. lizzie concedes afte 3 whacks

lizzie: I'd hate to think you were actually taught something this daft and utterly ignorant. Do look up "denial of the antecedent" some time, though. You might learn something...stranger things have happened, I s'pose.

I don't know why you can't grasp this, but what you advise doesn't matter a whit. Scalia is citing rawle, scalia is using what rawle said to support scalia's ruling. It doesn't matter a whit about denial of the militia clause antecedent, it only matters that scalia is agreeing that what rawle said in 1825, is TRUE.

Here is scalia citing wm rawle & agreeing with rawle, in the 2008 heller ruling:

scalia, 2008: "In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent… .
“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” Rawle 121–122
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

It's not scalia or rawle 'denying the antecedent', it's scalia claiming rawle is supporting an individual RKBA interpretation. It is also scalia, like you, misunderstanding what a corollary is, & contending rawle was somehow contending that the RKBA clause was an individual right, simply because rawle called it a 'corollary'. Scalia views the word 'corollary' as a tunnel leading to a shining light of gunrights sanctuary, when it's rather the headlights of an oncoming train.

But either way, scalia agreeing that rawle calls the RKBA clause a corollary to the militia clause, or scalia contending the 2ndA 'prevents elimination of the militia', your grammar ruse collapses.

lizzie: Ta ta...I'd continue this, but for two posts in a row, you can't manage not to indulge in unnecessary insult, etc. Enjoy the last word...I won't see it.


That's your prerogative; as if you've been ms congeniality throughout, eh?

I thought that I should never see, such rightwing democrats in my tree (mystery quote)

[hack89]

27. The President and our party platform say it is an individual right. nt

[jimmy the one]

28. What about 4 liberal justices ruling for militia interp?

hack: The President and our party platform say it is an individual right. nt

Politics - the DNC & obama/biden cannot realistically as current leaders, contend they oppose the supreme court decision, would make too many waves for little gain, so they proclaim support for the SCOTUS ruling, expediently, without having to divulge true feelings on the ruling.

It DOES however, create a conundrum, since by agreeing with the supreme court5 republican rightwing 2008 heller decision by scalia, thomas, alito roberts & kennedy, is DNC & are joe & barack DISAGREEING with the 4 liberal justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Stevens who ruled for the militia based right?

.. how about democrat DU readers, do you think Ginsburg Sotomayor Breyer & Stevens were WRONG about ruling for the militia interpretion of the 2ndA?
.. I think they were spot on. I know it.

Had obamacare been shot down, obama would've had to 'accept' SCOTUS & once again repubs scalia, alito, thomas kennedy & 'roberts', but he surely would've disagreed with the decision.
A difference is that in obamacare, obama, like gore in 2000 bushvgore, could've vocally said he disagreed with scotus & supported ginsburg et al - while he accepted it.

There could be nothing to be gained by obama vocally disagreeing with heller 2ndA decision, since obama really had no dog in the hunt as the case with obama in obamacare & gore in bush v gore, so obama kept quiet on 2ndA. Why stoke the fire?

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. One wonders why didn't you actually *quote* the dissent in Heller?

Oh, yeah- because it doesn't quite say what you claim it says:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Stevens, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
[June 26, 2008]

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right...

And good luck getting this overturned-from further on in the same dissent:

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

[jimmy the one]

30. iconoclast's canard

iconoclast: One wonders why didn't you actually *quote* the dissent in Heller?
Oh, yeah- because it because it doesn't quite say what you claim it says:

iconoclast then cites justice stevens evidently conjecturing: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

You take this paragraph out of context. You or some other pro gunner has tried this elsewhere, I wish you would stop it, it's sophomoric at best & rightwing propagangda at worst.

from your very cornell site, dunno how you missed it:
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>>> Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

This dissent called the majority opinion "strained and unpersuasive" and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation.

So please, iconoclast, stop employing this canard.