Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by newsgatherer
Jim Verdolini wrote;
Your argument is entirely derivative. Cannons are arms of war, the second amendment is about arms ergo all arms are included.
If there is a connection...show me with proof. Find someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery.
-Jim-
“Do I really need to go back and post all those quotes about ships again? I mean, its a bit redundant don't you think? “
None of those quotes concerning ships is in any way tied to the second amendment. You fail to connect the dots except in the realm of opinion.
“You understand my point, as you yourself admit that cannons were "considered appropriate for private use", that there is indeed "someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery."
You just disagree with our 2nd Amendment on the issue.
jones”
You confuse an absence of comment on a subject with a position ON that subject. In other words, you take the absence of any discussion of cannon as a right as proof of the right. I worked from the other direction. I took actually discussion of specific arms as proof that said arms were covered by the specific act, the second amendment, being discussed.
I believe I am on stronger ground here. I also believe you continue to confuse “legal” with “protected right”. We are speaking of a specific constitutional guarantee, the second Amendment. Some want to argue broad property rights here when such rights are not the 2nd. The second is limited to arms. The specific type and class of arms covered is the issue. I can and have produced specific evidence directly associated with the second to bolster my view that some classes are arms are covered. Some have responded with a view that my position is simply a minimum and that the field of protected arms is far wider, When asked for proof, I get opinion and other arguments that revolve not around the second amendment, but on property rights themselves. I see this as an argument that mixes apples and oranges. The two legal rights are not related. The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.
“NO specified 'arms' are listed in the 2nd Amendment, as you well know, Jim.
You are simply attempting to pettifog the issue.”
While no specific arms are mentioned in the Amendment, very specific arms were mentioned repeatedly in the discussions about the amendment (cannon never mentioned) and even more specifically, the very enabling legislation the founders created to regulate this militia of the people, goes into considerable detail and again….no cannon.
“Yes, this is the 'Brady bunch' contention. -- That governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights.
As an officer of the court, do you support the 'BB' opinion over the clear words & intent of the Amendment itself?”
Yes, but the Brady Bunch is on bogus legal ground when they make the claim. I am not an officer of any court, just someone who has read a LOT of legal and historic opinion on the 2nd. In the world of the USA, what matters is not what ones opinion is. We all have views and most are simply wrong. What matters is what views have the rule of law.
I really believe your view would not be upheld in any serious court in the country while I believe my view can and would prevail in most courts outside of the 9th district and DC.
You confuse an absence of comment on a subject with a position ON that subject.
You made a direct comment, as quoted above. Your denials are becoming pitiful.
In other words, you take the absence of any discussion of cannon as a right as proof of the right.
The words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. Get it?
I worked from the other direction. I took actually discussion of specific arms as proof that said arms were covered by the specific act, the second amendment, being discussed. I believe I am on stronger ground here.
Your beliefs are immaterial to the issue. The actual words of the 2nd are definitive. Cannons are a type of arms, as are 'assault weapons'. Neither can be made 'illegal'.
I also believe you continue to confuse "legal" with "protected right". We are speaking of a specific constitutional guarantee, the second Amendment. Some want to argue broad property rights here when such rights are not the 2nd. The second is limited to arms. The specific type and class of arms covered is the issue.
I can and have produced specific evidence directly associated with the second to bolster my view that some classes are arms are covered.
BS. You opine that 'some classes of arms' can be declared illegal, yet you can cite no Constitutional basis for that power. - None exists.
Some have responded with a view that my position is simply a minimum and that the field of protected arms is far wider, When asked for proof, I get opinion and other arguments that revolve not around the second amendment, but on property rights themselves.
Arms are a type of property.
I see this as an argument that mixes apples and oranges. The two legal rights are not related.
More sheer bull. Arms are a type of property. [see the Congressional arguments to ratify the 14th, for proof]
The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.
And, -- it clearly says that the right to keep & bear that "type of property" shall not be infringed.
"NO specified 'arms' are listed in the 2nd Amendment, as you well know, Jim. You are simply attempting to pettifog the issue."
While no specific arms are mentioned in the Amendment, very specific arms were mentioned repeatedly in the discussions about the amendment (cannon never mentioned) and even more specifically, the very enabling legislation the founders created to regulate this militia of the people, goes into considerable detail and again….no cannon.
"Yes, this is the 'Brady bunch' contention. -- That governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights.
As an officer of the court, do you support the 'BB' opinion over the clear words & intent of the Amendment itself?"
Yes, but the Brady Bunch is on bogus legal ground when they make the claim. I am not an officer of any court, just someone who has read a LOT of legal and historic opinion on the 2nd.
Yes, and what you have read is the 'BB' opinion, supported by big government devotees.
In the world of the USA, what matters is not what ones opinion is. We all have views and most are simply wrong. What matters is what views have the rule of law.
That's my point. The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.
I really believe your view would not be upheld in any serious court in the country while I believe my view can and would prevail in most courts outside of the 9th district and DC.
Your view does prevail, Jim; and in particular in the 9th district and DC.
“You understand my point, as you yourself admit that cannons were "considered appropriate for private use", that there is indeed "someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery." You just disagree with our 2nd Amendment on the issue.
You confuse an absence of comment on a subject with a position ON that subject.
You made a direct comment, as quoted above. Your denials are becoming pitiful.”
______________________________________
I do not deny my opinion. I deny that YOUR opinion of the meaning of the amendment is based on anything more than wishful thinking and stubbornness.
________________________________________
“The words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. Get it?”
__________________________________________
Yes and cars are a specific type of transportation but neither cars nor cannon are covered by the 2nd. You ask me to “get” something that you fail to prove.
__________________________________________
“Your beliefs are immaterial to the issue. The actual words of the 2nd are definitive. Cannons are a type of arms, as are 'assault weapons'. Neither can be made 'illegal'.
___________________________________________
Now that is really silly. I can produce actual legal decisions that support my view and you only offer the dictionary and your opinion. Your argument is entirely “beliefs”. You have yet to produce an argument that is more and that is tied to the amendment in question.
__________________________________________________
“BS. You opine that 'some classes of arms' can be declared illegal, yet you can cite no Constitutional basis for that power. - None exists.”
__________________________________________
The Constitution is not needed to declare some classes of arms illegal. All that is needed is to provide a valid legal argument that the class of arms being banned is NOT a class protected by the amendment. If you want to make all classes of arms protected, You need to produce an argument that does this, an argument that goes beyond your opinion. Prove your case.
______________________________________________
“Some have responded with a view that my position is simply a minimum and that the field of protected arms is far wider, When asked for proof, I get opinion and other arguments that revolve not around the second amendment, but on property rights themselves.
Arms are a type of property.
I see this as an argument that mixes apples and oranges. The two legal rights are not related.
More sheer bull. Arms are a type of property. [see the Congressional arguments to ratify the 14th, for proof]”
_______________________________________________
Again you are blind to my point. The characteristic of arms as property is not in any way indicative of what arms are covered by the Second Amendment. If you want to argue that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, fine, but you cannot use the second amendment for that argument.
______________________________________
“The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.
And, -- it clearly says that the right to keep & bear that "type of property" shall not be infringed.”
__________________________________________
No, it does not address property at all. It addresses arms. That they are property is outside the scope of the amendment.
____________________________________________
“Yes, and what you have read is the 'BB' opinion, supported by big government devotees.”
____________________________________________
No, what I have read is the historic record and the law of the land as evidenced by actual court opinions. What you offer is opinion.
_____________________________________________
“That's my point. The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.”
______________________________________________
No, what I am saying is that the arms that appear to be protected by the second amendment under the law is the class of arms suitable for militia use as outlined by the founders. You have offered no proof linked to the second that I am wrong. You only offer opinion.
You seem to reject anything that is not of your view not by presenting a better argument linked to fact but simply because you do not like the argument. Fine, but do not confuse yourself into thinking your view has any legal credance. For that you need specific constitutional and legal cites and you have provided none so far.
Yes and cars are a specific type of transportation but neither cars nor cannon are covered by the 2nd.
How bizarre. You are bringing cars into the issue simply to pettifog it even further. For shame Jim.
You ask me to "get" something that you fail to prove.
Not at all.. I'm trying to get you to admit that the words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. You refuse to 'get it', and are getting desperate enough to play silly word games about cars.
Arms are a type of property. [see the Congressional arguments to ratify the 14th, for proof]
The Constitution is not needed to declare some classes of arms illegal.
Good grief. You really do contend that Congress or the States can flat out prohibit certain "classes of arms" despite what our Constitution clearly says in both the 2nd & 14th Amendments. No such prohibitory power has ever been granted to any level or branch of government.
All that is needed is to provide a valid legal argument that the class of arms being banned is NOT a class protected by the amendment.
The plain words of both Amendments do not specify "class of arms" nor 'class of property'. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a power exists to define some such "class" of bannable items. -- None does.
If you want to make all classes of arms protected, You need to produce an argument that does this, an argument that goes beyond your opinion. Prove your case
No proof is needed. -- The wording of the Amendments themselves proves the case.
Even though they have no explicit authority to do so?
Are you snorting cocaine while writing this stuff? Drinking maybe?
Did you miss the part where ship owners had purchased cannons for their ships with no squaking from the government? In fact, it was these very previously armed ships the government wanted to hire against Britain/France/Barbary Coast?
Did the cannon fairy just come along and wave her wand and those cannons on those ships appeared?
Bizarre comment again. I don't need to "argue" that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, because the 2nd clearly protects my right to keep & bear ALL types of arms. Cannons are arms.
I am informing you of that fact.
You want to argue against that Constitutional fact.
Why?
The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.
And, -- it clearly says that the right to keep & bear that "type of property" shall not be infringed.
No, it does not address property at all. It addresses arms. That they are property is outside the scope of the amendment.
Gibberish.. --- Your ability to nitpick in an inane fashion appears boundless. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?
The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.
No, what I am saying is that the arms that appear to be protected by the second amendment under the law is the class of arms suitable for militia use as outlined by the founders. You have offered no proof linked to the second that I am wrong. You only offer opinion.
You were given the link to the proof recently published by the Justice Dept, - one that confirms our RKBA's as an individual right. -- You supposedly agreed with that report, yet now you claim that the 'militia' clause limits the "class of arms suitable".
At the founding, both Militia & private individuals owned cannons, as you admitted earlier.
We still have that inalienable right, despite infringements supported by misinformed people like you.
That is how it reads.
Again, well said. The insurance rates alone would bankrupt even Donald Trump.
I wonder, - do private owners of nuclear materials [like power companies], even have insurance against theft & misuse of the radioactive materials they possess?
Who would be stupid enough to write such a policy?
I'd much prefer someone with a more vested interest in their safe operation than in padding budgets.
"Not at all.. I'm trying to get you to admit that the words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. You refuse to 'get it', and are getting desperate enough to play silly word games about cars."
Jonestown, it takes more than yoiur simply repeating something to make it so. There is no legal basis for your position and there is no historic case either. That leaves you with opinion alone, not enough.
Yes and cars are a specific type of transportation but neither cars nor cannon are covered by the 2nd.
How bizarre. You are bringing cars into the issue simply to pettifog it even further. For shame Jim.
You ask me to "get" something that you fail to prove.
Not at all.. I'm trying to get you to admit that the words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM.
You refuse to 'get it', and are getting desperate enough to play silly word games about cars.
Jonestown, it takes more than yoiur simply repeating something to make it so. There is no legal basis for your position and there is no historic case either.
My "legal basis" is the 'historic' 2nd Amendment.
That leaves you with opinion alone, not enough.
Jim, this is getting amusing. --- You keep repeating YOUR opinion, as if that were enough.
“Good grief. You really do contend that Congress or the States can flat out prohibit certain "classes of arms" despite what our Constitution clearly says in both the 2nd & 14th Amendments. No such prohibitory power has ever been granted to any level or branch of government.”
______________
The second does not address artillery. If it does, provide your cites and legal opinions. As to government not having the power to prohibit anything, the gun control act of 1968 alone proves you wrong. In 1967 I could buy a new Walther PPK. Today I must buy a Walther PPKS as the original arm has been banned for import. Entire classes or drugs have been banned. Even some foods are illegal. Government bans stuff every day.
____________
“All that is needed is to provide a valid legal argument that the class of arms being banned is NOT a class protected by the amendment.
The plain words of both Amendments do not specify "class of arms" nor 'class of property'. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a power exists to define some such "class" of bannable items. -- None does.”
___________
Now we come to the crux of your error. I do not have to provide any burden of proof as the state of the law as it exist IS my position. You are the one who must make what is currently illegal or regulated legal. Simply saying something is protected by the Constitution has no more force of law than my contending CFR to be illegal.
Your, and my opinion, are of absolutely no importance to the law of the land. All that matters is what will get you arrested. My view is “legal” while yours will have you in jail in a host of states before you can say “second amendment”. They will pat you on the head, say “there, there, whatever you say” as they lead you off to the clink.
_____________
“If you want to make all classes of arms protected, You need to produce an argument that does this, an argument that goes beyond your opinion. Prove your case
No proof is needed. -- The wording of the Amendments themselves proves the case.”
___________
Tell it to the court. They will be amused.
___________
“OK... so there is no Constitutional provision to allow the Government to restrict ownership of cannons, so them passing laws that restrict them are just fine with you?”
___________
No, you have it backward. There is no Constitutional protection covering cannon so government can and does restrict or regulate them. This is the state of the law.
___________
“Did you miss the part where ship owners had purchased cannons for their ships with no squaking from the government? In fact, it was these very previously armed ships the government wanted to hire against Britain/France/Barbary Coast?”
___________
Do you miss the very basic and simple distinction between something being legal and protected? Obviously.
___________
“Bizarre comment again. I don't need to "argue" that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, because the 2nd clearly protects my right to keep & bear ALL types of arms. Cannons are arms.
I am informing you of that fact.
You want to argue against that Constitutional fact.
Why?”
____________
Because, while your heart is in the right place, your knowledge of constitutional law and the state of the issue in our courts is so wrong as to place you in jeopardy of arrest if you ever tried to DO what you think is legal. We need voters on the issue, not confused jailbirds.
____________
“The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.”
____________
Why, cite your cases. Provide your precedence’s. Opinion is not enough.
____________
“No, what I am saying is that the arms that appear to be protected by the second amendment under the law is the class of arms suitable for militia use as outlined by the founders. You have offered no proof linked to the second that I am wrong. You only offer opinion.
You were given the link to the proof recently published by the Justice Dept, - one that confirms our RKBA's as an individual right. -- You supposedly agreed with that report, yet now you claim that the 'militia' clause limits the "class of arms suitable".
At the founding, both Militia & private individuals owned cannons, as you admitted earlier.
We still have that inalienable right, despite infringements supported by misinformed people like you.”
_____________
You run from your opinion right to the Justice Dept recent opinion embracing an individual right (something I agree with) and then, without laying any legal or constitutional framework, jump to the conclusion that this individual right includes artillery. If you are right, show me the body of law.
The Constitution is not needed to declare some classes of arms illegal. - JIM VERDOLINI -
Good grief. You really do contend that Congress or the States can flat out prohibit certain "classes of arms" despite what our Constitution clearly says in both the 2nd & 14th Amendments.
No such prohibitory power has ever been granted to any level or branch of government.
As to government not having the power to prohibit anything, the gun control act of 1968 alone proves you wrong.
You are quite confused.---
--- The '68 act only proves that the Feds are violating the 2nd.
In 1967 I could buy a new Walther PPK. Today I must buy a Walther PPKS as the original arm has been banned for import. Entire classes or drugs have been banned. Even some foods are illegal. Government bans stuff every day.
Bizarre comment, as it makes my point that you are a big government supporter who approves of gun prohibition.
You seem to think that because our government has abused power that this proves they were granted that power.
The plain words of both the 2nd & 14th Amendments do not specify "class of arms" nor 'class of property'. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a power exists to define some such "class" of bannable items. -- None does.
If you want to make all classes of arms protected, You need to produce an argument that does this, an argument that goes beyond your opinion. Prove your case
No proof is needed. -- The wording of the Amendments themselves proves the case.
Now we come to the crux of your error. I do not have to provide any burden of proof as the state of the law as it exist IS my position.
We ALL agree that the 2nd is being infringed. - YOU admitted that earlier. -- Yet you irrationally contend that assault weapon prohibitions are not infringements.
You are the one who must make what is currently illegal or regulated legal. Simply saying something is protected by the Constitution has no more force of law than my contending CFR to be illegal. Your, and my opinion, are of absolutely no importance to the law of the land. All that matters is what will get you arrested. My view is "legal" while yours will have you in jail in a host of states before you can say "second amendment". They will pat you on the head, say "there, there, whatever you say" as they lead you off to the clink.
Babble on..
No proof is needed. -- The wording of the Amendments themselves proves the case.
Tell it to the court. They will be amused.
That type of "let them eat cake" wisecrack did not prove to be an amusing position for some earlier despots, Jim. -- Get some new lines.
Sorry Jonestown, you obviously have no idea of how our government works. You seem to believe simply scrunching your eyes shut, putting your fingers in your ears, and endlessly repeating "the clear language" has some Constitutional meaning in the greater world.
Prisons are full of people who are equally confused.
Believe what you will but I recommend NOT mounting that chain gun on your bass boat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.