Posted on 10/25/2011 10:06:48 AM PDT by DCBryan1
I appreciate your point, but if you give “us” the right to rebellion, perhaps armed rebellion, do we give that same right to the OWS crowd?
Are they allowed to shoot modern day “redcoats” too?
You said more than that. By your own words, you are an anarchist. Not to mention a hypocrite:
When people live in a world where each decides what laws they will follow, that is anarchy.
Presser is SCOTUS, supposed to be binding precedent on ALL of the lower federal courts. This isn't an interjurisdictional squabble, this is the court system engaging in blatant misrepresentation of binding precedent.
-- The major problem is that the majority of the people on SCOTUS don't agree with you. --
They don't even agree with themselves. That's my point. One day they say "if a weapon has a use in the military, then it is in the ambit of the 2nd amendment, and the law is unconstitutional" (Miller, 1937 IIRC). Then next day they read that and assert "Miller says a weapon has to be in common civilian use to be in the ambit of the 2nd amendment."
Well, which does Miller say? It can't be both. And if a court can't follow it's own statements, isn't that pretty much making it up as you go along, akin to anarchy?
-- ... that simple means we must work harder to elect a president who will appoint judges to our liking. --
See Souter, Harriet Miers (than goodness the public put the kibosh to that), etc.
Scalia is the one who changed the meaning of Miller - and he's also the one who upheld an expansive view of the Commerce clause (Raich) in such a way that SCOTUS is apt to find federal mandating of commercial activity (purchase health insurance) to be constitutional.
I think the system is like a house of cards or a beetle-infested timber. Not much can be done about it, just sit back and enjoy the show.
BIOYAC
Sometimes the opinions converge very closely.
Is it just to execute an innocent man in peacetime, after a kangaroo trial and no evidence of violation of any law?
Sometimes a naked power grab is just that, and our federal government is far from fair and trustworthy, especially on 2nd amendment jurisprudence.
I figure about 5 generations from now, our posterity will be disarmed.
I've said the same thing a few different ways. The law is about brute force, and the government has superior firepower. All the rest is just chatter.
But I enjoy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
The Founding Fathers went to WAR with their King over a fraction of what we take for granted these days.
And people like you telling us all to sit at the back of the bus like good little prols is just disgusting.
Actually, yes it does. Especially when the Constitution is REALLY damn clear on the limits.
“...but if you give “us” the right to rebellion...” - MB26
Don’t credit me with such an idea, or the ability to confer rights. That is way above my pay grade.
While I totally disagree with the socialist goals of OWS, the people there do not have any fewer rights than anyone else.
In the eyes of the crown, our founding fathers were an treasonous bunch. In my view they were morally right, and courageous beyond reason.
“...but if you give “us” the right to rebellion...” - MB26
Don’t credit me with such an idea, or the ability to confer rights. That is way above my pay grade.
While I totally disagree with the socialist goals of OWS, the people there do not have any fewer rights than anyone else.
In the eyes of the crown, our founding fathers were an treasonous bunch. In my view they were morally right, and courageous beyond reason.
Just because you don’t like somebody’s politics doesn’t mean that they less endowed by the Creator in the area of rights.
I am arguing clearly as to which which side is correct, which is plainly correct to anyone that can read and comprehend English, and I don't need a court to tell me what a clearly written paragraph "really" means. If any court has the power to redefine the constitution at will then we no longer have a valid constitution and therefore no valid basis for law, or for that matter a legitimate government.
Reality 101:
Many rational people have very different views than we do on many issues. The moment you call an opponent irrational is when you give them the ammunition to defeat their argument.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
There is a concept at law that says that no sentence, no word, not even a comma is in a law without a specific purpose.
Courts will always ask, if the right was to be absolute, then why not say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?” ... and nothing else.
I am not agreeing with the other sides argument, just simply stating, that from a legal standpoint, they have a very arguable point.
As far as restrictions on certain conduct and individuals, do you want no gun laws? Do you want a person under indictment for murder but out on bail to be able to carry a concealed weapon.
Do you want a 12 year old bringing a pistol to school?
Do you want psychotic persons, non-psychotic only as long as they are on their meds, to be able to carry a fully automatic weapon?
Do you want radical Islamics to be able to stock 105mm howitzers in their mosque?
Do you want a bank robber to get out of prison due to overcrowding after serving only 3 years of a 15 year sentence, to stop and buy a sawed-off shotgun on the way to “close out everyone’s account” at your bank branch?
Absolutism in rejecting ANY gun law is a dangerous area.
Got it.
Your strawmen are also all classics on EVERY thread like this and have more holes in them than are worth responding to.
Absolutism in rejecting ANY gun law is a dangerous area.
Tough cookies. As TJ said, I'd rather deal with the problems attendant to too much liberty than those that come with too little liberty.
As a Life NRA, Life GOA, SAF, JPFO member I can spot a Fudd like you from 1000 yrds and 300grs away. If you don't like the explicit language of the Second, there is an Amendment process. Don't circumvent it with "penumbras", "emanations", and Brady Bunch weasel arguments.
You call my questions “strawmen,” but in reality they are real life 21st Century realities we all could face.
I love it when people call arguments “strawmen,” because it is a clear and concise indication they cannot respond to them.... as you failed to do here.
BTW, since you are who and what you are, you will not be responded to in the future. Life is too short, and 2d Amendment issues too important to be left to the likes of you.
Or to the like of Quislings like you who support the very legal system being used to destroy our Rights.
You are just another worthless hypocrite...
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.