Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Thu 03-28-2024 9:19AM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Tue 07-01-2008 1:29AM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08-26-2003 12:08AM
Posts: 499
Location: Off-Campus

Source: Off Campus
For those of you who out and out dismiss the other side simply as being wrong, please keep in mind that many constitutional scholars (and apparently some supreme court justices) disagree with you. I don't care what side you are on you are not the end all opinion on this issue. Please come back to reality and realize that the opposing side may have a legitimate point before disregarding them. Smarter people (and people with actual authority in the realm of our consitution; like lawyers and constitutional scholars) than you consider the opposing side and many of them concede that they have a point. While this may seem like me trolling, this issue specifically brings out the immense arrogance many people appear to have on their own viewpoint on this issue; specifically in an are where I assume none of you are actual subject matter experts.

_________________
"We're not gonna die. We can't die. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die. "


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Tue 07-01-2008 1:54AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM
Posts: 711
Location: the darkest pits of hell

Source: Off Campus
I agree, there is no clear understanding of the Amendment as I've said. That's all I want to get across :)

_________________
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Wed 07-02-2008 7:55AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: MST-WPA Wireless
lordofstars wrote:
For those of you who out and out dismiss the other side simply as being wrong, please keep in mind that many constitutional scholars (and apparently some supreme court justices) disagree with you.



Yes, and they have to do some pretty entertaining and spectacular mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion. A plain reading of the constitution gives the simple idea that the constitution did two things - established the federal government, and placed limits upon it. The bill of rights further specified the limits placed on the government - and the second amendment was designed to limit the ability of the government to restrict arms to the citizens (despite the opinion of Breyer, which holds that the constitution was never intended to place limits on the government).

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Thu 07-03-2008 4:38PM 
Offline
bertowned
bertowned
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 4:26PM
Posts: 2118

Source: Off Campus
the naked prophet wrote:
lordofstars wrote:
For those of you who out and out dismiss the other side simply as being wrong, please keep in mind that many constitutional scholars (and apparently some supreme court justices) disagree with you.



Yes, and they have to do some pretty entertaining and spectacular mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion. A plain reading of the constitution gives the simple idea that the constitution did two things - established the federal government, and placed limits upon it. The bill of rights further specified the limits placed on the government - and the second amendment was designed to limit the ability of the government to restrict arms to the citizens (despite the opinion of Breyer, which holds that the constitution was never intended to place limits on the government).


Agreed 100%. I believe the second amendment is incredibly clear.
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.
The preposition at the beginning is simply explaining their reasoning for the right. the right/freedom/liberty that the 2nd ammendment is intended to protect is the right to bear arms.

And if you want to get all "well it says militia so that means military" i'm going to have to call BS. Since everyone seems to keep wanting to go back in time and analyze it lets do that. After the revolutionary war, a Militia meant all able bodied men (who could bear arms). So by the 1787 definition, if you want to say that only a militia is allowed to bear arms, then ALL FREE MEN (and women now by extension of Civil Rights laws) are allowed to bear arms.

Also - the whole "well the constitution was written for the wild west so i'm going to ignore the parts that are outdated" argument is horridly flawed. You don't just pick and choose which parts of the constitution are relevant. Otherwise it would be very easy to say "well that whole first amendment was written when we faced impending threat from King George trampling our free speech and religion and killing people over it. we don't have that problem anymore so free speech is also not necessary". The second amendment guarantees you the right to own a weapon, and the government (and citizens) must follow ALL of the constitution, not just the parts they like. If you don't like part of it, work to change it.

_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil.
Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Fri 07-04-2008 12:07AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM
Posts: 711
Location: the darkest pits of hell

Source: Off Campus
If it were so clear then why does the Supreme Court argue amongst themselves about it? Why do Constitutional scholars argue about it? I don't think that anyone writing on this forum has some sort of extraordinary divine inspiration into the matter; it simply isn't clear, but everyone has an opinion.

Bolding half the amendment doesn't disqualify the rest.

_________________
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Fri 07-04-2008 10:54AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: Off Campus
calculusninja wrote:
If it were so clear then why does the Supreme Court argue amongst themselves about it? Why do Constitutional scholars argue about it? I don't think that anyone writing on this forum has some sort of extraordinary divine inspiration into the matter; it simply isn't clear, but everyone has an opinion.


They argued amongst themselves because 4 of them had a very clear political agenda, as do many so-called "constitutional scholars." Nobody on this forum needs any divine inspiration to understand the intent and purpose of the founders when they wrote the 2nd amendment - everything they have said, their arguments for and against the amendment, and all the surrounding historical events are a matter of public record. Anyone arguing the opinion that it does not protect an individual right to own and use firearms must completely ignore all the historical record and writings of the founding fathers. Read the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions, it is quite clear.


calculusninja wrote:
Bolding half the amendment doesn't disqualify the rest.


A very interesting statement, especially coming from someone who bolds the first half in an attempt to disqualify the rest.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Fri 07-04-2008 7:15PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM
Posts: 711
Location: the darkest pits of hell

Source: Off Campus
the naked prophet wrote:
They argued amongst themselves because 4 of them had a very clear political agenda, as do many so-called "constitutional scholars." Nobody on this forum needs any divine inspiration to understand the intent and purpose of the founders when they wrote the 2nd amendment - everything they have said, their arguments for and against the amendment, and all the surrounding historical events are a matter of public record. Anyone arguing the opinion that it does not protect an individual right to own and use firearms must completely ignore all the historical record and writings of the founding fathers. Read the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions, it is quite clear.


So your argument is that only the Justices that disagree with you have an agenda. The rest don't. Please. It's all lovely sunshine rainbows to believe in something but I must lack the naivete to think that only those that disagree with me have a political agenda. You don't think the super-conservatives appointed by Bush and Reagan have a political agenda? Dream on.

Quote:
calculusninja wrote:
Bolding half the amendment doesn't disqualify the rest.


A very interesting statement, especially coming from someone who bolds the first half in an attempt to disqualify the rest.
[/quote]

I was referring to the above poster bolding text, something that I didn't do. The second half is prefectly fine, but I refuse to ignore the first part.

In all honesty I believe there was never a right to run around the streets with bazookas and AKs, but I am open to the idea that the 2nd amendment isn't clear, and it is possible I could be wrong. But to sit there and claim that this matter is clear, and that anyone who disagrees is just some commie with a political agenda? I wish I could afford a drug that would make me that delusional.

_________________
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Sun 07-06-2008 11:56AM 
Offline
bertowned
bertowned
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 4:26PM
Posts: 2118

Source: Off Campus
For the record - i bolded the second half of the amendment because it is you who seem to be ignoring it. If you reread my post you would notice that i specifically addressed the first part of the amendment - that the Militia includes everyone.

Also Keep in mind that "well regulated" seems to mean to a number of people "we can ban whatever the hell we want in the name of public good." Wrong. Well regulated != restrictive.

And the 4 "constitutional scholars" in the minority you are referring to do have a nefarious agenda. They're called activist judges. They want to manipulate and change the law in their own manner with no regard for the legislative process. Instead they prefer to make public policy from the bench.

_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil.
Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Mon 07-07-2008 8:01AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: MST-WPA Wireless
My question is what drug are you on that you can't see clearly the words written in front of your face?

Maybe it's not a drug. Liberalism is a mental disease.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Mon 07-07-2008 6:46PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM
Posts: 711
Location: the darkest pits of hell

Source: Off Campus
Quote:
Maybe it's not a drug. Liberalism is a mental disease.


lol. Really? Is this it? Not impressed. Oh well, it's been fun.

At least be more original, jeeze :|

_________________
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Tue 07-08-2008 2:08PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: Fulton Hall
calculusninja wrote:
Quote:
Maybe it's not a drug. Liberalism is a mental disease.


lol. Really? Is this it? Not impressed. Oh well, it's been fun.

At least be more original, jeeze :|



If your points had been more original instead of the same tired old debunked crap that has been thrown around by propaganda machines for years, maybe I would have bothered to come up with something original. Why bother when it's just going to be more of the same from someone who isn't willing to listen anyway?

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Tue 07-29-2008 10:57PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri 08-22-2003 5:31PM
Posts: 243
Location: Swimmer House

Source: Off Campus
*climbing on my soapbox
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.


There's a comma between the clause about the people's rights and the phrase 'A well regulated Militia', not a period or a semi-colon. Could it mean that 'the people' refers to the members of the 'well regulated Militia'? Which would then support the regulation of arms, under the clause of 'well regulated Militia'? The argument that 'the writers are stating a reason for the right' would be doubtful, as a similar thought construct does not exist in the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Based on my cursory examinations, it doesn't seem to appear in the remainder of the US Constitution (outside the preamble, which is more of a statement of intent of the entire document). In my experience with constitutional matters, you don't state why you're doing something IN the constitution, you just state the rule. The reasoning is passed down through interpretation and usage as each article is used.

Do I support banning of arms? No. Clearly the authors of the Constitution wanted us to be able to arm ourselves, whether it be for hunting (a major food source for Americans at the time), or for defending our persons (at a time when national rebellions were much more common than they are today).
Do I support regulation of arms? Yes. You don't get to have a RPG, or a fully-functional tank, or a nuclear bomb, just because you want one. There's gotta be some kind of limits/controls. Also, from a social standpoint, you don't want regular violators of public norms (i.e. felons, those with serious mental instability), to possess simple lethal weapons. It takes more effort for the inexperienced to kill with a knife than a gun.
Do I support handgun ownership? Yes. Their usefulness as personal protection has been proven for years upon years by the military and police forces.
Do I support conceal-carry? Yes. With the social stigma associated with carrying a weapon today, it's perfectly understandable to conceal carry to protect one's social standing.
Do I support heavy regulation on conceal-carry? Yes. Especially in the litigious society we live in today, you have to have 100% certainty that when you use your weapon, you're doing the right thing AND you're skilled in it's use. Marksmanship, tactical training, decision-making, negotiation, mental preparedness/competency, among others, are all important aspects that should be trained in anyone who believes they're prepared to take another's life in defense of the public good. Getting a 60% on marksmanship is not enough for me to trust someone to carry and be able to use a handgun in the real world.

I don't own any guns. Why? Because I don't hunt, I don't fear for my life or my property in Rolla, I don't have a good nearby range, and I haven't gone through the level of training I feel I need to own a handgun, or any kind of gun (the BSA is good for rifles and shotguns, but I'd like more). Because of all those reasons, I don't feel the need to spend the money on my own gun(s) at the moment. Soon as I find a reliable range and several good training classes, I'll look into getting a gun or two, and start working on my marksmanship.

*getting off my soapbox

_________________
-Ziggy


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Thu 07-31-2008 9:02AM 
Offline
Major

Joined: Wed 04-07-2004 10:21AM
Posts: 351
Location: Down the hall

Source: Harris Hall
There is a very nice range about 5 miles east of town off BB. It belongs to the Rolla Gun Club and you can join for $100 per year. That's a very reasonable price for a nice range where you have the key to the gate and can shoot pretty much any time you want. So, next excuse for not having a gun? 8)

_________________
"Oh, you're from Europe? Which part? The one whose butt we saved, or the one whose butt we kicked?"


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment
PostPosted: Thu 07-31-2008 7:52PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: Fidelity
CPT Redleg wrote:
There is a very nice range about 5 miles east of town off BB. It belongs to the Rolla Gun Club and you can join for $100 per year. That's a very reasonable price for a nice range where you have the key to the gate and the bathroom and can shoot pretty much any time you want. So, next excuse for not having a gun? 8)


Kelvron, I have an assortment of handguns and rifles (and a couple shotguns). You're welcome to shoot them, I'll even bring you to the range. You'll have to wait til after the semester starts, but the offer's good any time.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group