What if.........

[beevul]

The SCOTUS sooner or later will make a ruling on the second amendment.
The question in my mind isn't "why will they decide in favor of..." or "how will they be able to explain if..." or anything like that.

Its more along the lines of the following:

I can see three possible rulings (there likely are more):

1 That the second protects an individual right, period.

2 That it does NOT protect an individual right, period.

3 That it protects an individual right subject to restrictions.


Kind of a "what if" scenario, but I believe one of those 3 will be coming when the SCOTUS does make a ruling. I know no matter what way a ruling goes, there will probably be lawsuit on top of lawsuit. But thats not the question, to me.

The questions on my mind are: How would each of those 3 potential
rulings effect the country? What might the reactions of the populace be? Would we have mass civil unrest in the event of an unpopular ruling? Would we have gun collection units going door to door in the event of a ruling that it(the 2nd) does NOT protect an individual right? Lots of possibilitys, never seen them discussed, have at it.

Please try to keep it civil.:)

[MrBenchley]

1. Tee hee hee

Considering that US v Miller had already established that the second amendment does NOT protect an individual right, I'd expect all that would happen is that the NRA would continue lying about what the Supreme Court said.

But take heart...maybe this corrupt unelected drunk can appoint another Scalia or Rehnquist and the gun lobby will gets its wish...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

3. I rest my case....

Hahahahahaha...

But cheer up dozer....this unelected drunk is doinng all he can to pack the court with dishonest right wing asswipes like "Crossburning" Pickering...you may yet get YOUR wish...

[BullDozer]

4. Expect more

I rest my case

Well there you go folks bunkley has made his entire case without presenting a single fact. Nothing ever changes

[MrBenchley]

5. Who are you trying to kid, dozer?

You trying to pretend that the Supreme Court in Miller v US ruled the Second Amendment said individuals had a right to bear arms?

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

--Miller v US

You trying to pretend that this unelected drunk isn't trying to cram twitsed right wing pieces of shit like Pickering into the Courts?

[hansberrym]

6. Why do you think the the Supreme court even heard the case?

If Mr. Miller did not have standing to bring a second amendment defense, why didn't the Supreme Court simply dismiss Miller's argument for lack of standing?

[MrBenchley]

8. Next ask me

what I think of RKBA amateur lawyers....

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hansberrym]

19. Just what should one think of

of Anti-RKBA amateur lawyers.... whose arguments are so weak that
even the most obvious questions can not be answered with them.

[DocSavage]

7. Basing your argument on Miller?

OK Bench, who presented the case for Miller at the Supreme Court?


I just want to see how much you know about the case.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DocSavage]

18. Where did you get your JD?

I am on the same law level that you are, so that argument is moot. FYI, Miller was not even represented.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

13. Dozer, the only lie is the RKBA bogus claim

Else the gun lobby wouldn't be so desperate to have this unelected drunk stick a dishonest right wing piece of shit on the court...

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case. "

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

[BullDozer]

14. As expected

Yap it was predictable that you'd pull out the even more dishonest absolute rights bullshit.

Too bad the constitution neither enumerates nor guarantees any absolute rights.

Spin that wheel of bullshit again Bench.

What lie will you land on? Perhaps that the militia isn't really composed of the people but that it's really only the National Guard? (forget it the National Guard belongs to the Federal Government)

It's really too bad for you that the supplied quotes don't preclude the correct individual rights reading. All of those couched statements and vague declaratives make that impossible.

[MrBenchley]

22. Hahahahahahahaha!

"It's really too bad for you that the supplied quotes don't preclude the correct individual rights reading."
Between you and the ACLU, guess which one has any credibility with me?

[4farmgun]

28. yes you have miller

but I have never heard anyone explain to me how the 2cnd ammendment does not protect the rights of citizens against the potential abuses of the govt, while the rest of the bill of rights is very much so considered the 'rights of the people'. And please, the 2cnd ammendment is included in the constitution to assure the right of the state to have a malitia that can carry guns? I get it now 'a protection from' ?? to allow the army to carry guns. yep that makes sense.... Lets put in a rule that allows armies to carry guns. Can't be to careful you know

[MrBenchley]

30. And still do have Miller....

"And please, the 2cnd ammendment is included in the constitution to assure the right of the state to have a malitia that can carry guns?"
Yup. As the Federalist Papers make pretty clear.

[Peaceful_Nation]

56. I have a question?

If what you say is true and SCOTUS has determined that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right then why in God's name haven't they stop the ridiculous sale of firearms to citizens? Since the militia is now considered the National Guard wouldn't the 2nd only apply to them? I'm confused. No regular citizen needs a gun of any type for anything as far as I'm cocerned. I never have nor will I ever be associated with a person who owns a gun. Everyone needs to just put down their guns and learn to live together without having to kill one another.

[MrSandman]

90. I have owned at least one gun

for over thirty years. Since I was 10. I have carried a gun almost daily for the past 11 years. I am carrying one as I type. It is legal for me to carry.

Now, I have never had to kill someone.
I have needed a gun to protect my family once during a home invasion. Police response time was 40 minutes according to 911 center.
I have been in arguments but gave no thought to the gun on my person. Neither did the other person. Only one other person knows for certain that I carry my gun so regularly.
I travel in a relatively low crime area, but have little ability to communicate at times. Very scattered cell coverage.
SCOTUS has ruled that the government(Police) have no duty to protect me.

I will continue to elect to depend upon myself to be prepared for defense of myself.

[alwynsw]

52. If you'll take the time to read and research

the case concerned a firearm that is illegal under current law. Shotguns may not have a barrel length under 18 inches.

The case in no way addressed legal firearms.

Please find a new line. Bits of excrement is past boring.

[beevul]

16. I should have been clearer

I meant that sooner or later they would make a CLEAR and DIRECT ruling, and I was getting at what effect such a CLEAR and DIRECT and MODERN ruling would have on this country. I.E. CONCRETE RULING. Like one devoid of much interpretational value to those on iether side of the gun issue. The previous case law is muddled at best, IMO, and can be used to bolster arguments on both sides, if the person argueing it is selective with the content, and context of said content. Though I suppose that the same could be said about just about any case law. We have all seen plenty of that in J/PS before.

For the purposes of this discussion , I request that everyone try to forget all the previous case law, cases which can be interpreted to the advantage of iether side, and concentrate on the 3 likely possibilitys, or, outside the three possibilitys listed, maybe there are other possible outcomes. Be realistic. What effect would a CLEAR, DIRECT and MODERN ruling in each of these 3 scenarios have on our country?

1 That the second protects an individual right, period.

2 That it does NOT protect an individual right, period.

3 That it protects an individual right subject to restrictions.

[hansberrym]

17. #1 and #3 are nearly the same since there is no such

thing as a completely unfettered right. Even the freedom of speech is subject to restrictions.

Suppose either #1 or #3 were the outcome, then nothing would really change except for some lawsuits to establish the outlines of the right with respect to federal laws. The biggest effect would be on DC.
There is already broad recognition of individual rights to bear arms in the overwhelming majority of states, so the effect on state laws would would be minimal unless the supremes incorporated the second under the fourteenth and made clear that they intended to protect that right as vigorously as the freedom of speech. In that case, those few states with restrictive laws would need to rewrite thier laws accordingly.


If #2 were selected
Sadly I think we have become so accustomed to judges simply lying (such as in the Silveira opinion in which the court actually cropped quotations in order to make it appear that there was a historical basis for thier ruling)that nothing would happen except a few heated demonstrations. There would be outrage at first but then nothing.
Note that Judge Reinhardt remains on the bench with no sign that he will be impeached any time soon, despite the knowingly false arguments he wrote in his opinion. I doubt that there would be any actual repercussions if the SCOTUS fibbed on 2nd. And given the stranglehold that the forces of oppression have on the press these days, I think there would be a huge disinformation campaign to accompany a fibbed ruling.




My quess is that the SCOTUS will rule that an limited individual right exists, much along the lines of reasoning put forth by Laurence Tribe in American Constitution Law (3rd edition, 2000). However I think they will rule as narrowly as possible in the majority opinion rather than incorporate the second amendment under the fourteenth. For instance the DC case might bring a recognition of some minimal level of an individual right that the federal government can not take away, while leaving state laws unaffected. If the court hears the DC case they might then pass on the other cases and avoid the question of incorporation.

that's my 2 cents

[MrBenchley]

21. Jeepers, hans....

"Note that Judge Reinhardt remains on the bench with no sign that he will be impeached any time soon...."
Guess all that gun nut hooey about his dishonesty was just that....hooey.

[hansberrym]

26. I quess "dishonesty" is another word that can mean its opposite

in double-speak.

(Quoting Judge Reinhardt)
47The Pennsylvania minority, so frequently cited by the proponents of
the individual rights view, also used language markedly different from that of the Second Amendment. Its proposal for a federal constitutional amendment, which was rejected in favor of the Second Amendment, would have unambiguously established a personal right to possess arms for personalpurposes:

“o law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . .” The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents, at 623-24 (quoted in Finkelman, supra, at 208).

Note that Judge Reinhardt tells a half-truth. The proposed amendment that the he selectively quoted from is indeed an unambiguous statement of an individual right, However in making his point the judge cropps-off the following:

"That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and thier own state, or the united States, or for the purpose of killing game; ... "(the portion of that SAME proposed amendment cited by Judge Reinhardt follows)


Now maybe you have a different notion of what is honest debate, but
cutting out that portion of a quotation in order to try to spin the facts 180 degrees is not "honesty". The Judge admits that the proposed amendment is unambiguously an individual rights amendment,
but tries his dishonest best to spin the facts.

Just what would the words " the people have a right to bear arms..."
be doing in a proposed amendment that was "unambiguously" an individual right? I wonder?

[MrBenchley]

20. We have a clear, direct and modern ruling

which the gun lobby hates...

Unless the right wing fucktards manage to wedge another crooked piece of shit like Rehnquist on the court, it will stand.

[hansberrym]

23. Why was it again that Miller's case was NOT thrown out

by the Supreme Court for lack of Standing?


And why was it that the Miller Court made the effort to explain the meaning of the term militia? And why did the Supreme Court in Miller come up with such a different definition of "Militia" than the 9th Circuit?

The 9th Circuit is at odds with the Supreme Court on both issues.

1st) The 9th circuit has thrown out teo second amendment defenses
(Silveira and Hickman) on grounds of lack of standing. Note that though the Supreme Court was urged to reject Miller's claim on the basis of standing they did not.


2) “Militia “ according to 9th Circuit in Silveira means “State military force”, a permanent force, under
State control as opposed to Federal control.

This definition is deficient because it is contrary to the Supreme Court’s definition in Miller, and because it ignores the essential character of a militia – composed of citizens, not a standing force, but always at the ready; in which arms are owned by the citizen. The role of the States in the Constitutional scheme is to organize and carry out the training as prescribed by Congress. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Miller, the militia is better understood in contrast to regular (permanent or standing) troops that the States are forbidden to keep without approval of Congress.

[MrBenchley]

24. Too too funny, hans

"The 9th Circuit is at odds with the Supreme Court on both issues."
And that's why the Supreme Court took up.....oh, that's right....they didn't.

[hansberrym]

25. I quess you are no going to answer the question

[MrBenchley]

27. Ask it again, hans...

It's always instructive to hear fantasies about how the Supreme Court had no standing to hear a landmark case that has stood for 64 years...

[4farmgun]

31. yes you have miller

but no one has explained to me why these bright men that wrote the constitution needed to enumerate the right of armies to carry guns?!
The malitia was understud to be all able bodied men under the age of 45(?) These men were to show up to defend the populace armed, this almost implies a resposibility to be armed.
And the Bill of Rights are those rights that all people have and can NOT be infringed by the Govt.

[MrBenchley]

34. And still do

"no one has explained to me why these bright men that wrote the constitution needed to enumerate the right of armies to carry guns?"
Suggest you read the Federalist Papers then, where they explained it themselves.

[4farmgun]

36. Federalist papers

that I have read do not address this point, a pointer would be a great help and I will go back to read those arguments. But you don't address the big issue, that the bill of rights are those enumerated rights of the people and these rights are not to be infringed by the Govt. These are the rights the people use to protect themself from the Govt.

[MrBenchley]

38. Try #29

which is clearly addressed to the collective people of New York state:

"To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. "

http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.

"But you don't address the big issue"
No, I find that libertarian crap a pantload and a half. It's not a bg issue but a small poot..

[4farmgun]

40. Thanks for the start

I understand that you are much better versed in some of the manutia of these discussions, and maybe I don't spell so good, but I enjoy the opportunity to do some research and try to get a better understanding of our Govt. I will read Federalist #29 and would like to further discuss the Bill Of Rights. I am still of the opinion the the bill of rights is constructed to protect me from the Govt. Again, thanks

[hansberrym]

41. Still spinning?

What did Hamilton say about the people at large in Federalist 29?

(answer: that they be armed)

[MrBenchley]

47. Surrrrre, hans....

And did he say anything aboiut an individual right? No, he did not. He spoke only of collective arms in a well-regulated militia.

[hansberrym]

60. Yes in fact Hamiliton does address individual rights

(quoting MrBenchley)
And did he say anything aboiut an individual right? No, he did not. He spoke ONLY of COLLECTIVE arms in a well-regulated militia.(my emphasis)
(unquote)


Not surprisingly you are wrong on both counts.

The people At LARGE (meaning from the context not in current training or active duty)were to armed. And the citizens would defend their OWN RIGHTS.

Unless there is a state named "own rights" you are SOL.


(quoting Hamilton Federalist #29)
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people AT LARGE than to have them properly armed and equiped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." (again my emphasis)
(endquote)

(agaim from #29)
"but if circumstances at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend thier OWN RIGHTS and THOSE of thier fellow CITIZENS. "
(endquote)

[MrBenchley]

65. "the people at large" is not a collective term?

Are you really trying to pretend that?

"their own rights" does not refer to a collective group of people?

[hansberrym]

66. Still feigning confusion over collective nouns?

(quoting MrBenchley)
"Are you really trying to pretend that?
"their own rights" does not refer to a collective group of people?"
(end quote)


Wrong again on both counts....

"Its own rights" would refer to the group considered as a whole.
"thier own rights" refers to the people as individuals.

"assemble them" and not assemble "it"
("them" referring to the people at large)




The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

collective noun

NOUN: A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
USAGE NOTE: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team. See Usage Notes at government, group.

[MrBenchley]

72. Yes, you are....

and your flailing attempts get sillier and sillier...

"the people at large" is a collective term no matter how desperately you spin.

[hansberrym]

74. Seems you are still playing the half-truth game.

I posted the defintion of Collective noun to demonstrate that
"the people at large" was used in the PLURAL, meaning the members of the group considered as individuals.


The usage in Federalist 29 shows that Hamilton was speaking of
"the people at large" as a group of individuals.

"Its own rights" would refer to the group considered as a whole.
"thier own rights" refers to the people as individuals.


"assemble them" and not assemble "it"
("them" referring to the people at large)

In both cases Hamilton used the PLURAL construction.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

collective noun

NOUN: A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
USAGE NOTE: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a PLURAL verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team. See Usage Notes at government, group.

[MrBenchley]

76. The people at large is a collective term

no matter how desperately you want to spin it, hans.

[hansberrym]

78. That is still only half of the truth, no matter how often you say it.

But then half-truths are all you got.

Why do you suppose Hamilton used the PLURAL?



The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

collective noun

NOUN: A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
USAGE NOTE: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a PLURAL verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team. See Usage Notes at government, group.

[MrBenchley]

79. Too frigging funny, hans...

Tell us, do you REALLY think people writing in 1788 wrote and spoke colloquial English the way it is used in the year 2000? More to the point, who do you think is going to actually buy that silliness?

[hansberrym]

81. Its a safe bet that Hamiltion knew the difference between "them" and "it"

An argument built on the assumption of error is a poor argument.

Maybe Hamilton made numerous grammatical errors, or maybe he did not and was actually referring to the people as individuals when he wrote about the people at large.

[MrBenchley]

82. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

Tell us, do you REALLY think people writing in 1788 wrote and spoke colloquial English the way it is used in the year 2000? More to the point, who do you think is going to actually buy that silliness?

[hansberrym]

84. I'll leave the kidding to you.

Since you know the meaning of the term "colloquial English", it is a good bet that you actually do know the meaning of "collective noun".

As you well know "collective noun" can refer to the the individuals in a group or to the group as a whole depending on the usage.

The usage in question is PLURAL ("them", "thier") indicating that Hamilton was referring to the individuals in the group.

The meaning of the words "them", "their", and "its" have not changed since 1788; "them" and "their" still refer to the PLURAL. and "its" still refers to the SINGULAR.

[MrBenchley]

86. I also know the meaning of "grasping at straws"

And now I'm done with your desperate silliness.

Your posts are especially funny this week, considering that it turns out not even the right wing Rehnquist court wants to pretend the Second Amendment refers to individual rights...

But hey, maybe this unelected drunk can cram another crooked asswipe like Scalia on the court, and the gun lobby will get its wish at the expense of ordinary Aemricans and the Constitution.

[hansberrym]

88. Your done? All you have "done" so far is

"grasping at straws" such as in your "argument" that maybe Hamiltom did not know that "them" and "their" would be a reference to "the people at large" as individuals.

[hansberrym]

42. More spin. But then you don't have a real answer..

(Quoting Benchley)
"It's always instructive to hear fantasies about how the Supreme Court had no standing to hear a landmark case that has stood for 64 years..."
(unquote)


I asked you why the Supreme Court did not throw out Miller's case
on the grounds of lack of standing. You know full well that the
"standing" refers to the defendant (Miller) and not the Supreme Court.


If the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, then Miller would have had no standing to make that argument. However, even without anyone arguing his case, and with the government urging the Supreme Court to reject on that basis, the Court went ahead anyway.

[MrBenchley]

48. Too TOO funny, hans....

It's always instructive to hear fantasies about how the Supreme Court improperly heard a landmark case that has stood for 64 years...

[hansberrym]

54. It IS fantasy to think they acted improperly.

But then it is the anti's who insist that individuals do have not standing to bring a second amendment claim.


(quoting Benchley)
It's always instructive to hear fantasies about how the Supreme Court improperly heard a landmark case that has stood for 64 years...
(end quote)


As I am sure you know, the Supreme Court acted in a completely proper way in hearing the case and not dismissing (or finding) due to a lack of standing by the defendant.

[MrBenchley]

57. Too too funny, hans.....

So not only is your claim a pantload, you now want to say it was me making it...

[hansberrym]

59. In fact, you are the ONLY one of making that claim.

I have insisted that they DID hear it PROPERLY, BECAUSE they did NOT dismiss Miller's argument on the grounds that he (Miller)lacked standing.


"It's always instructive to hear fantasies about how the Supreme Court improperly heard a landmark case that has stood for 64 years..."


Yeah, and it is still standing. And Miller, the individual, would still have standing(if he were alive) as an INDIVIDUAL. Or did you think "Miller" was the name of the 51st state?

[MrBenchley]

64. Too frigging funny, hans....

It's always instructive to hear fantasies about how the Supreme Court improperly heard a landmark case that has stood for 64 years...

[hansberrym]

67. Maybe you meant: "TWO" friggin funny since you said the

same thing earlier.

But then you still do not have an answer.

[MrBenchley]

68. Too funny, hans...

But keep flogging that horse and maybe it will come back to life...

[hansberrym]

69. I'll Just keep asking the question.

Why did the Supreme Court NOT reject Miller's claim on the basis of HIS (Miller's) lack of standing?


But I won't hold my breath waiting an answer.

[MrBenchley]

70. PLEASE do.....

It's hilarious to see you still fussing over this decision...especially the same week that even the Rehnquist court agreed the "individual rights" argument was hooey.

Cheer up, though...maybe this unelected drunk can shoehorn another crooked asswipe like Scalia on the Court and the gun lobby will finally get its blood money's worth...

[hansberrym]

71. What's funny is...

...that you don't have an answer.

[MrBenchley]

73. What's even funnier is that

you think an answer is needed...

[hansberrym]

75. If it is so obvious, why do you keep dodging?

If you had an answer I'm sure that you would have posted it by now.

[MrBenchley]

77. Been there, done that, hans....

try post number 1.....

[hansberrym]

80. Your "argument" is Circular.

Your naked assertion and your conclusion are the same thing?

Is this "Anti" Logic ?

[MrBenchley]

83. Who the hell are you trying to kid, hans...

Now tell us again how Hamilton used colloquial English for 2000 back in 1788.....

[hansberrym]

85. First a circular argument, then you repond by going off on a tangent ?

No wonder you are known as the Dodger !!


(I think your last post was meant for another argument, but I
can't help but notice that is yet another naked assertion on your part. NO facts,nothing to back up your claim, just a naked assertion that 200 years ago Hamilton might have used the PLURAL form when he actually meant to indicate a SINGULAR.

Maybe pigs flew 200 years ago? )

[MrBenchley]

87. Your pig still isn't airborne...

Say, what happened in the Supreme Court this week?

[hansberrym]

89. Say ... why are you still dodging?

If you have any real arguments - let's see them.


So far all you have offered is an assertion, then a series of dodges in which you refuse to defend your own assertion. Finally you end with a dodge that would make Joe Issuzu blush, and you don't even bother to repackage your assertion, you just direct us to post #1 as proof of the correctness of post #1.

Perhaps your think pigs can fly by lifting themselves up by their own tails.

[4farmgun]

33. the right is absolute

and with that right goes th corosponding responsibilities.
Yes you have a right to carry a gun and if you abuse that right or make grevious errors you will stand the punishment. Let the people take control back of thier own lives

[MrBenchley]

35. Not hardly...

[4farmgun]

37. My bad

I asumed this to be a discussion board and took the latest post as an invitation to stimulate discussion without any preconcieved history, I thought it a good excercise.

[MrBenchley]

39. Gee, amazing that somebody who can write...

" took the latest post as an invitation to stimulate discussion "
seems in other posts to be unable to spell "militia."

[DoctorWho]

43. Spelling ? was that the topic here ?

" took the latest post as an invitation to stimulate discussion "
seems in other posts to be unable to spell "militia."

Perhaps He wrote His post too quickly,
but at least He was civil and a gentleman, while You cuss
like a proverbial sailor, what is the point of that ?
I am attempting to understand these issues, and You have not
helped, I see anger from You and unresolved issues,
I am a Democrat, yet the party line on Guns seems too
rigid to Me, I will most likely apply for a Gun permit
based on many of Your comments, why ? because its My life,
and People like You do nothing but yell and scream and cuss,
but do no real good at all.
Does the Bill of Rights say there is a Right to bear arms ?
I don't know really, and maybe I don't really care so much
about that right now as much as I care about staying alive
and defending Myself against a Gang Guy....

[beevul]

45. WOW

You said so much truth , in so few words.


My compliments. Toast to the post.:toast: And in case I didnt say it before, Welcome to DU!!

[MrBenchley]

49. Actually, the topic here

was whether the Supreme Court would makea "definitive ruling", i.e., a ruling that would fulfill gun nut fantasies.

"I am attempting to understand these issues, and You have not
helped, I see anger from You and unresolved issues"
Gee, I shouldn't be angry about that racist piece of shit AshKKKroft and his attempt to pander to one of the most ccorrrupt industries in the US?

"I will most likely apply for a Gun permit
based on many of Your comments, why ? because its My life,
and People like You do nothing but yell and scream and cuss"
<sarcasm> Oh, as long as you've got a GOOD reason....</sarcasm>>

[4farmgun]

51. Spelling is not my forte

but I thank you for the kind words. I only have a couple of things about the 2cnd ammendment that I don't see addressed. The Bill OF Rights as a whole define those things that the writers of the constitution deemed necessary to protect the people from the Govt.
The phrase 'a well,regulated malitia' means what it meant at the time of the drafting of the constitution. Any able bodied male under the age of 45(?). The federlist paper #29 puts the formation, regulation and command of a well regulated malitia under the control of the state, not federal Govt. The Bill of rights as a whole is about private rights, not collective rights. Again thanks to DoctorWho

[alwynsw]

53. Bravo!

Thanks for stating your position so well! It coincides with mine on some points, diverges on others, and begs for open discussion.

Welcome to DU!

[Pathwalker]

29. Does this count?

"High Court Won't Review Ban On Assault Weaponms" Washington(Reuters)- "The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and DECLARED THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR IDIVIDUALS TO OWN A GUN(emphasis mine). This happened yesterday.

More...

Link: http://newsfindlaw.com/politics/s/20031201/courtgunsdc.html

[MrBenchley]

32. Just like I said....

Niw you can epect the gun nuts to go on lying their pants off....

[hansberrym]

44. We'll leave the lying to the anti's

(Quoting "Honest Abe" Reihardt from Silveira )
Moreover, in other public fora, some of the framers explicitly
disparaged the idea of creating an individual right to personal
arms. For instance, in a highly influential treatise, John
Adams ridiculed the concept of such a right, asserting that the
general availability of arms would “demolish every constitution,
and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed
by no man — it is a dissolution of the government.” 3 JOHN 50
(end quote)


The actual quote in context exposes the Judge's lie.


Defense of the Constitution, John Adams
”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, EXCEPT IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENCE, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws..."
(My emphasis)


The good judge could not have missed John Adams exception for
PRIVATE SELF-DEFENCE, nor could he misunderstand the meaning.
He is a liar.

Can any of you anti's explain how the phrase "private self-defence"
could plausibly have any collective meaning?

Or why a Federal Judge would use the quote in the way that he did?

[beevul]

46. The silence...

is deafening. I can hardly wait to hear the explanation for this one.


"Can any of you anti's explain how the phrase "private self-defence"
could plausibly have any collective meaning?"

"Or why a Federal Judge would use the quote in the way that he did?"-hansberrym

Good questions, verry good at that. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to be answered though. At least not with any shred of truth.

[hansberrym]

62. Thanks. I don't really expect a real answer from the anti's.

Honest debate is not their MO.


The DU is a great forum for getting out the facts because it forces a dialogue. The Anti's can not simply post a bogus argument and then retreat to chambers as judge Reinhardt is able to do. Here the anti's have to defend thier arguments, and given a long enough discussion, the facts eventually catch them up.


Please consider writing your congressman and asking him to look into
Judge Reinhardt's lies. That is the only way to really make things happen.

[MrBenchley]

50. Cheer up, hans

Maybe this unelected drunk will get to appoint another crooked piece of shit like Rehnquist or Scalia and you'll get a ruling that panders to the corrupt gun industry.

[hansberrym]

55. No comment on Judge Reinhardt's lies?

[MrBenchley]

58. Other than laughter?

Nope....

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hansberrym]

63. A thousand pardons, I should not have been so unkind ...

to bring up the fact that someone employed that same line of "argument" just a few weeks ago in this forum.


No names have been mentioned to protect the guilty.