In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
see cce1302... they're abundant here too.
Yeah yeah. I'm just not worried about it. Aren't you the guy who's been criticizing me again and again for taking things too seriously? Now I'm not serious ENOUGH? Which is it?
I've got my guns. Legally. I had no issues getting them--took me less than an hour to walk in, pick them, fill out the forms, get the phone check, pay, and walk out. Who cares whether they CHECK on things or not? I've got nothing to hide is the mantra, right?
Yes, I let the courts decide and then go with what they say. I follow the law. Baaaaaa.
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
I am not crazy about NICS, but I like it a heck of a lot better than the Brady I waiting period, notification of local law enforcement jazz we had to start with. The FBI has apparently taken steps to streamline the process too. Checks that would have resulted in a "delay" status a few years ago are going straight to a NICS examiner, and 99.99% of the time, we get a "proceed" answer before hanging up the phone.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
see cce1302... they're abundant here too.
Yeah yeah. I'm just not worried about it. Aren't you the guy who's been criticizing me again and again for taking things too seriously? Now I'm not serious ENOUGH? Which is it?
I've got my guns. Legally. I had no issues getting them--took me less than an hour to walk in, pick them, fill out the forms, get the phone check, pay, and walk out. Who cares whether they CHECK on things or not? I've got nothing to hide is the mantra, right?
Yes, I let the courts decide and then go with what they say. I follow the law. Baaaaaa.
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
Owning and carrying firearms does not equal endangering others by inciting panic. You don't have to pass a background check to enter a theater with your voice intact, do you?
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
Owning and carrying firearms does not equal endangering others by inciting panic. You don't have to pass a background check to enter a theater with your voice intact, do you?
Nice try.
Ok, we're going to get ugly, are we? "Nice try"? Don't patronize ME, fella. I don't care who you think you are when you're at home, but on these fora you're just a guy with a keyboard.
My point is valid--there are compromises to EVERYTHING. Every time I have to stay home on a Friday night to watch my kids, my right to "liberty" is restricted. This is obviously a silly example, but the point is, "RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" still requires compromises, so they don't infringe on other people's rights--it's the way of life. Much more the amendments.
Newspapers can't publish seditious or treasonous editorials, in "violation" of the 1st amendment. Right now, felons can't own guns. What about their 2nd amendment rights? "Exigency" trumps amendment 4. The 8th amendment is TOTALLY up for interpretation. As another extreme example, the 18th amendment was REPEALED because it was later considered a mistake--or was the 21st amendment the mistake? I personally disagree with the 22nd amendment, but I have to abide by it. I'm not above the law. The law is how the courts interpret it to be. I just follow the law. That makes me wrong...how?
Rights are different in interpretation and execution for everyone, apparently. And any time you have many people living together in a society, compromises have to be made. We just have to do the best we can. Laws, rules, restrictions are all there. We don't have an anarchy, much as some would like it that way--we have a democracy. This means we have to take into account all viewpoints.
By the way, some people ARE panicked at the sight of guns being carried! Especially if they are whipped out and start getting waved around--or shot. What about these innocent people's rights? Or do they have none?
All I'm saying is the courts decide what is right. We can petition for change, but I'm not going to go about seeking change by violating the law. And in this case, I'm not even worried about it. You're not wrong to be worked up, but I'm not wrong for NOT, either.
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
No gun laws before 1934? I think you'd better go re-read your history, fellas. That whole "Shot Heard Round the World" thing? It started because of gun laws.
NICS is in fact a win for us. It's a whole lot better than the mandatory waiting period and indefinite and interminable records searches that we WOULD have if not for such groups as the NRA. It IS a small step towards our goal. But go ahead and rant. All you display is childish irrationality.
OK, I reread my history. I enjoy rereading my history. I still don't see anything about gun laws being involved in the battles of Lexington and Concord. If there were laws involved it would be the laws against treason and rebellion. It was a military operation to disarm the Massachusetts Militia. Not even Ruby Ridge or Waco are parallels. The Brits didn't make any pretense of law enforcement.
What goal is it that we have taken a small step toward?
I should have said no federal gun control laws before 1934. Chicago did have a handgun registration law before that. Some other local laws in various places.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
see cce1302... they're abundant here too.
Yeah yeah. I'm just not worried about it. Aren't you the guy who's been criticizing me again and again for taking things too seriously? Now I'm not serious ENOUGH? Which is it?
I've got my guns. Legally. I had no issues getting them--took me less than an hour to walk in, pick them, fill out the forms, get the phone check, pay, and walk out. Who cares whether they CHECK on things or not? I've got nothing to hide is the mantra, right?
Yes, I let the courts decide and then go with what they say. I follow the law. Baaaaaa.
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
You are a sophistry "arteest"! This was posted by resident member Don McManus and suits as rebuttal to your fallacious argument.
quote:"Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable." By Don McManus
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
Owning and carrying firearms does not equal endangering others by inciting panic. You don't have to pass a background check to enter a theater with your voice intact, do you?
Nice try.
Ok, we're going to get ugly, are we? "Nice try"? Don't patronize ME, fella. I don't care who you think you are when you're at home, but on these fora you're just a guy with a keyboard.
it was a try, and you've been duped by hearing it so much that you think it's a valid argument. It isn't. It's played out and been debunked many times over. Don't patronize me with such a foolish argument. quote:
My point is valid--there are compromises to EVERYTHING. Every time I have to stay home on a Friday night to watch my kids, my right to "liberty" is restricted. This is obviously a silly example, but the point is, "RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" still requires compromises, so they don't infringe on other people's rights--it's the way of life. Much more the amendments.
It's a very silly example because your liberty is not restricted. It's your choice to stay home with your kids. You chose to have those kids. You choose to keep them and take care of them. Nobody is forcing you to do that. You can get a babysitter.quote:
Newspapers can't publish seditious or treasonous editorials, in "violation" of the 1st amendment. Right now, felons can't own guns. What about their 2nd amendment rights? "Exigency" trumps amendment 4. The 8th amendment is TOTALLY up for interpretation. As another extreme example, the 18th amendment was REPEALED because it was later considered a mistake--or was the 21st amendment the mistake? I personally disagree with the 22nd amendment, but I have to abide by it. I'm not above the law. The law is how the courts interpret it to be. I just follow the law. That makes me wrong...how?
Rights are different in interpretation and execution for everyone, apparently. And any time you have many people living together in a society, compromises have to be made. We just have to do the best we can. Laws, rules, restrictions are all there. We don't have an anarchy, much as some would like it that way--we have a democracy. This means we have to take into account all viewpoints.
No, we have a constitutional republic, which means that the people are responsible for holding the government to the rule of law, which it seems most Americans don't have the guts to do.
quote:
By the way, some people ARE panicked at the sight of guns being carried! Especially if they are whipped out and start getting waved around--or shot. What about these innocent people's rights? Or do they have none?
That's totally off topic. Whipping out guns, waving them around and shooting indiscriminately is not in anybody's definition of the second amendment.
And no, innocent people don't have a right to not see guns in public places. If they don't want to see guns in private, that's fine, but in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
quote:
All I'm saying is the courts decide what is right. We can petition for change, but I'm not going to go about seeking change by violating the law. And in this case, I'm not even worried about it. You're not wrong to be worked up, but I'm not wrong for NOT, either.
The courts don't decide what's right; they decide what is law.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
No gun laws before 1934? I think you'd better go re-read your history, fellas. That whole "Shot Heard Round the World" thing? It started because of gun laws.
NICS is in fact a win for us. It's a whole lot better than the mandatory waiting period and indefinite and interminable records searches that we WOULD have if not for such groups as the NRA. It IS a small step towards our goal. But go ahead and rant. All you display is childish irrationality.
OK, I reread my history. I enjoy rereading my history. I still don't see anything about gun laws being involved in the battles of Lexington and Concord. If there were laws involved it would be the laws against treason and rebellion. It was a military operation to disarm the Massachusetts Militia. Not even Ruby Ridge or Waco are parallels. The Brits didn't make any pretense of law enforcement.
What goal is it that we have taken a small step toward?
I should have said no federal gun control laws before 1934. Chicago did have a handgun registration law before that. Some other local laws in various places.
What about the Dred Scott decision? It allowed "negroes" to keep and bear arms, which seems like a big expansion of gun laws.
And earlier, speaking of the Brits, they DID attempt to seize the arms of the colonials--an early attempt at gun control, no? That is I think what Rocky is saying.
James, I don't disagree with you in principle, I'm just illustrating that INTERPRETATION of events figures largely here. I don't pretend I know the answers--in fact I'm sure I don't.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
Owning and carrying firearms does not equal endangering others by inciting panic. You don't have to pass a background check to enter a theater with your voice intact, do you?
Nice try.
Ok, we're going to get ugly, are we? "Nice try"? Don't patronize ME, fella. I don't care who you think you are when you're at home, but on these fora you're just a guy with a keyboard.
My point is valid--there are compromises to EVERYTHING. Every time I have to stay home on a Friday night to watch my kids, my right to "liberty" is restricted. This is obviously a silly example, but the point is, "RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" still requires compromises, so they don't infringe on other people's rights--it's the way of life. Much more the amendments.
Here you compare your self restriction to government restriction. A classic sophism.
quote:Newspapers can't publish seditious or treasonous editorials, in "violation" of the 1st amendment.
No, it is a punishment for caused harm. The medium used is irrelevant.
quote:
Right now, felons can't own guns. What about their 2nd amendment rights?
If you choose to break a law, you give up the limitations placed on government by our Constitution. Is that so difficult to understand?
quote: "Exigency" trumps amendment 4.
No it doesn't. Probable cause AND exigency may, however, but again this is apples and oranges.
quote:The 8th amendment is TOTALLY up for interpretation.
We're dipping into "laughable" territory here. The 8th is no more up for interpretation than any other amendment.
quote:As another extreme example, the 18th amendment was REPEALED because it was later considered a mistake--or was the 21st amendment the mistake?
One should note that this was a restriction that was placed, not on our government, but on the people. The constitution and the amendments establish the meets and bounds of the powers of the US Government. Therefore, it was illogical to restrict the people in amendment 18. In any case, what you have accomplished by noting this, is that there is a proper procedure for changing the limitations of our government and that is the amendment process.
quote:I personally disagree with the 22nd amendment, but I have to abide by it.
again, you miss the point that it is a restriction on government, not on individuals.
quote:I'm not above the law. The law is how the courts interpret it to be. I just follow the law. That makes me wrong...how?
Rights are different in interpretation and execution for everyone, apparently. And any time you have many people living together in a society, compromises have to be made. We just have to do the best we can. Laws, rules, restrictions are all there. We don't have an anarchy, much as some would like it that way--we have a democracy. This means we have to take into account all viewpoints.
By the way, some people ARE panicked at the sight of guns being carried! Especially if they are whipped out and start getting waved around--or shot. What about these innocent people's rights? Or do they have none?
All I'm saying is the courts decide what is right. We can petition for change, but I'm not going to go about seeking change by violating the law. And in this case, I'm not even worried about it. You're not wrong to be worked up, but I'm not wrong for NOT, either.
Choose what is important to you. I would have hoped that as a service member, who is charged with defending our rights, that you might put them as a higher priority. In that I am disappointed, but not at all surprised.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
That's right. Thanks for clarifying. This statement is what I've been trying to get across.
Brilliant. You took half a sentence out of context to "prove" that you're right.
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
That's right. Thanks for clarifying. This statement is what I've been trying to get across.
Brilliant. You took half a sentence out of context to "prove" that you're right.
Ok, Chief. Whatever you say. You and "Mr. Perfect" (HA!) can't have it both ways. He tells me in one sentence:
"Choose what is important to you."
Then in the next sentence: "I would have hoped that as a service member, who is charged with defending our rights, that you might put them as a higher priority. In that I am disappointed, but not at all surprised", suggesting that I should NOT choose what is important to ME, but to HIM. And YOU, cce, are apparently unable to understand that people may disagree with you, and that PERHAPS they are not WRONG.
Why the vitriol? Is it so worth it to you? I just can't get so worked up about it. My opinion is my own, and even WITH my opinion, I'm not so uppity as to suggest you are WRONG. I just disagree.
Then I studied a lot learned that I was wrong. And I changed.
BTW, most people can see right through the "I'm so humble I'm going to disagree with you without saying that I think you're wrong" act. It's pretty transparent.
(If you just take the 3 words in my 2d line "I was wrong" and quote that out of context, then you can put a notch in your belt for this thread)
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
That's right. Thanks for clarifying. This statement is what I've been trying to get across.
Brilliant. You took half a sentence out of context to "prove" that you're right.
Ok, Chief. Whatever you say. You and "Mr. Perfect" (HA!) can't have it both ways. He tells me in one sentence:
"Choose what is important to you."
Then in the next sentence: "I would have hoped that as a service member, who is charged with defending our rights, that you might put them as a higher priority. In that I am disappointed, but not at all surprised", suggesting that I should NOT choose what is important to ME, but to HIM. And YOU, cce, are apparently unable to understand that people may disagree with you, and that PERHAPS they are not WRONG.
Why the vitriol? Is it so worth it to you? I just can't get so worked up about it. My opinion is my own, and even WITH my opinion, I'm not so uppity as to suggest you are WRONG. I just disagree.
I implore you to choose what it is that is important to you, but suggest that you choose something other than what you have. Is that so hard to understand? Perhaps this is why you don't understand the importance of the founding documents.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
A couple years ago, I agreed with you, Navybat.
Then I studied a lot learned that I was wrong. And I changed.
BTW, most people can see right through the "I'm so humble I'm going to disagree with you without saying that I think you're wrong" act. It's pretty transparent.
(If you just take the 3 words in my 2d line "I was wrong" and quote that out of context, then you can put a notch in your belt for this thread)
Well, I still don't think you're WRONG--I applaud anyone who is passionate about a position (even PETA, and the liberals, misguided though I think they may be). I guess you're saying I'm naive, as well as transparent. I've been called worse.
But I do think right now the system, as pertains to gun laws, is ok. I'm not worried about it. You, "Mr. Perfect", and many here are. So be it. If you can change the system, more power to you. But I don't think I'm wrong if I think it doesn't need fixing.
quote:But I do think right now the system, as pertains to gun laws, is ok. I'm not worried about it. You, "Mr. Perfect", and many here are. So be it. If you can change the system, more power to you. But I don't think I'm wrong if I think it doesn't need fixing.Thinking one is not wrong and factually being correct are two different beasts.
I will simply compare and contrast your 'wrongness' with the text of Amendment II...
Amendment II
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.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:But I do think right now the system, as pertains to gun laws, is ok. I'm not worried about it. You, "Mr. Perfect", and many here are. So be it. If you can change the system, more power to you. But I don't think I'm wrong if I think it doesn't need fixing.Thinking one is not wrong and factually being correct are two different beasts.
I will simply compare and contrast your 'wrongness' with the text of Amendment II...
Amendment II
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.
Nuff said.[;)]
Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Wait, wait. I thought YOU told ME I didn't understand the constitution. Well, well, well..."Mr. Perfect" isn't so perfect.
The constitution clearly (in Article III) states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Article III ALSO says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
Umm...for you, as someone who believes in simplicity, this seems pretty simple, no?
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Wait, wait. I thought YOU told ME I didn't understand the constitution. Well, well, well..."Mr. Perfect" isn't so perfect.
The constitution clearly (in Article III) states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Article III ALSO says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
Umm...for you, as someone who believes in simplicity, this seems pretty simple, no?
So, point me to the part which says that power includes interpretation of the constitution itself. The law and equity are UNDER the constitution, as is clearly stated.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
This is what the Constitution says about the Supreme Court. It talks about the Supreme Court deciding what conforms to the Constitution, but I don't see anything about "Interpreting" the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States of America
ARTICLE III.
SECTION 1. The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
SECTION 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a state shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Wait, wait. I thought YOU told ME I didn't understand the constitution. Well, well, well..."Mr. Perfect" isn't so perfect.
The constitution clearly (in Article III) states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Article III ALSO says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
Umm...for you, as someone who believes in simplicity, this seems pretty simple, no?
So, point me to the part which says that power includes interpretation of the constitution itself. The law and equity are UNDER the constitution, as is clearly stated.
Oh my GOD. There's no talking to you. That's the WHOLE POINT of sending cases to the Supreme Court--so they can determine the constitutionality of the law being violated, and interpret the law in the particular case! I visited the Clerk of the Supreme Court in his office no more than 3 months ago! He told me this himself! This is their role! Arggghhh. My 9 year old understands this...[xx(]
Ok, fine. If you won't believe ME, and you won't even believe the CONSTITUTION, here's a quote directly from the website of the US SUPREME COURT ITSELF. And here's the link:
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Wait, wait. I thought YOU told ME I didn't understand the constitution. Well, well, well..."Mr. Perfect" isn't so perfect.
The constitution clearly (in Article III) states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Article III ALSO says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
Umm...for you, as someone who believes in simplicity, this seems pretty simple, no?
So, point me to the part which says that power includes interpretation of the constitution itself. The law and equity are UNDER the constitution, as is clearly stated.
Oh my GOD. There's no talking to you. That's the WHOLE POINT of sending cases to the Supreme Court--so they can determine the constitutionality of the law being violated, and interpret the law in the particular case! I visited the Clerk of the Supreme Court in his office no more than 3 months ago! He told me this himself! This is their role! Arggghhh. My 9 year old understands this...[xx(]
Ok, fine. If you won't believe ME, and you won't even believe the CONSTITUTION, here's a quote directly from the website of the US SUPREME COURT ITSELF. And here's the link:
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Please, PLEASE argue with this.
Of course I believe the constitution. Did you miss that I do? It appears you are the one who is unable to grasp its clear language. Furthermore, justices can banter about what their duties are all they want, but what duties they are charged with are clearly enumerated. Why should I listen to some Tom, Dick, or Harry SC judge, when what he says is clearly not supported by the document that gives him the powers he has?
These are not riddles we're discussing here. The document was written in plain language!
Further still, I charged you with pointing to the language of the Constitution which enumerated the SC's power to interpret the Constitution, and rather than do that, you pointed to some irrelevant opinion piece! Classic sophism, of which you are king!
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
This is a very good article on constitutional interpretation.
"Marshall and Jefferson present two diametrically opposed views of the nature of constitutional interpretation, and it is regrettable that Marshall's view has been virtually uncontested in the United States during the past century; Jefferson was correct to warn that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices."
quote:Originally posted by RTKBA
This is a very good article on constitutional interpretation.
"Marshall and Jefferson present two diametrically opposed views of the nature of constitutional interpretation, and it is regrettable that Marshall's view has been virtually uncontested in the United States during the past century; Jefferson was correct to warn that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices."
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Comments
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
see cce1302... they're abundant here too.
Yeah yeah. I'm just not worried about it. Aren't you the guy who's been criticizing me again and again for taking things too seriously? Now I'm not serious ENOUGH? Which is it?
I've got my guns. Legally. I had no issues getting them--took me less than an hour to walk in, pick them, fill out the forms, get the phone check, pay, and walk out. Who cares whether they CHECK on things or not? I've got nothing to hide is the mantra, right?
Yes, I let the courts decide and then go with what they say. I follow the law. Baaaaaa.
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
quote:Originally posted by Tech141
quote:Originally posted by bpost
I'm still waiting for my 188 MPH Audi.
Well here ya go...
http://forums.thecarlounge.com/showthread.php?2672734-JE-Design-s-188-mph-Supercharged-Audi-A8
no, no, the one Bruce wants is black, looks like a Ford Taurus. An S8, I believe.[;)]
He disappeared when I reminded him that it was a sale, not a gift. And I hadn't even told him the price yet.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
see cce1302... they're abundant here too.
Yeah yeah. I'm just not worried about it. Aren't you the guy who's been criticizing me again and again for taking things too seriously? Now I'm not serious ENOUGH? Which is it?
I've got my guns. Legally. I had no issues getting them--took me less than an hour to walk in, pick them, fill out the forms, get the phone check, pay, and walk out. Who cares whether they CHECK on things or not? I've got nothing to hide is the mantra, right?
Yes, I let the courts decide and then go with what they say. I follow the law. Baaaaaa.
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
Owning and carrying firearms does not equal endangering others by inciting panic. You don't have to pass a background check to enter a theater with your voice intact, do you?
Nice try.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
Owning and carrying firearms does not equal endangering others by inciting panic. You don't have to pass a background check to enter a theater with your voice intact, do you?
Nice try.
Ok, we're going to get ugly, are we? "Nice try"? Don't patronize ME, fella. I don't care who you think you are when you're at home, but on these fora you're just a guy with a keyboard.
My point is valid--there are compromises to EVERYTHING. Every time I have to stay home on a Friday night to watch my kids, my right to "liberty" is restricted. This is obviously a silly example, but the point is, "RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" still requires compromises, so they don't infringe on other people's rights--it's the way of life. Much more the amendments.
Newspapers can't publish seditious or treasonous editorials, in "violation" of the 1st amendment. Right now, felons can't own guns. What about their 2nd amendment rights? "Exigency" trumps amendment 4. The 8th amendment is TOTALLY up for interpretation. As another extreme example, the 18th amendment was REPEALED because it was later considered a mistake--or was the 21st amendment the mistake? I personally disagree with the 22nd amendment, but I have to abide by it. I'm not above the law. The law is how the courts interpret it to be. I just follow the law. That makes me wrong...how?
Rights are different in interpretation and execution for everyone, apparently. And any time you have many people living together in a society, compromises have to be made. We just have to do the best we can. Laws, rules, restrictions are all there. We don't have an anarchy, much as some would like it that way--we have a democracy. This means we have to take into account all viewpoints.
By the way, some people ARE panicked at the sight of guns being carried! Especially if they are whipped out and start getting waved around--or shot. What about these innocent people's rights? Or do they have none?
All I'm saying is the courts decide what is right. We can petition for change, but I'm not going to go about seeking change by violating the law. And in this case, I'm not even worried about it. You're not wrong to be worked up, but I'm not wrong for NOT, either.
No gun laws before 1934? I think you'd better go re-read your history, fellas. That whole "Shot Heard Round the World" thing? It started because of gun laws.
NICS is in fact a win for us. It's a whole lot better than the mandatory waiting period and indefinite and interminable records searches that we WOULD have if not for such groups as the NRA. It IS a small step towards our goal. But go ahead and rant. All you display is childish irrationality.
OK, I reread my history. I enjoy rereading my history. I still don't see anything about gun laws being involved in the battles of Lexington and Concord. If there were laws involved it would be the laws against treason and rebellion. It was a military operation to disarm the Massachusetts Militia. Not even Ruby Ridge or Waco are parallels. The Brits didn't make any pretense of law enforcement.
What goal is it that we have taken a small step toward?
I should have said no federal gun control laws before 1934. Chicago did have a handgun registration law before that. Some other local laws in various places.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
see cce1302... they're abundant here too.
Yeah yeah. I'm just not worried about it. Aren't you the guy who's been criticizing me again and again for taking things too seriously? Now I'm not serious ENOUGH? Which is it?
I've got my guns. Legally. I had no issues getting them--took me less than an hour to walk in, pick them, fill out the forms, get the phone check, pay, and walk out. Who cares whether they CHECK on things or not? I've got nothing to hide is the mantra, right?
Yes, I let the courts decide and then go with what they say. I follow the law. Baaaaaa.
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
You are a sophistry "arteest"! This was posted by resident member Don McManus and suits as rebuttal to your fallacious argument.
quote:"Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable." By Don McManus
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
Owning and carrying firearms does not equal endangering others by inciting panic. You don't have to pass a background check to enter a theater with your voice intact, do you?
Nice try.
Ok, we're going to get ugly, are we? "Nice try"? Don't patronize ME, fella. I don't care who you think you are when you're at home, but on these fora you're just a guy with a keyboard.
it was a try, and you've been duped by hearing it so much that you think it's a valid argument. It isn't. It's played out and been debunked many times over. Don't patronize me with such a foolish argument. quote:
My point is valid--there are compromises to EVERYTHING. Every time I have to stay home on a Friday night to watch my kids, my right to "liberty" is restricted. This is obviously a silly example, but the point is, "RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" still requires compromises, so they don't infringe on other people's rights--it's the way of life. Much more the amendments.
It's a very silly example because your liberty is not restricted. It's your choice to stay home with your kids. You chose to have those kids. You choose to keep them and take care of them. Nobody is forcing you to do that. You can get a babysitter.quote:
Newspapers can't publish seditious or treasonous editorials, in "violation" of the 1st amendment. Right now, felons can't own guns. What about their 2nd amendment rights? "Exigency" trumps amendment 4. The 8th amendment is TOTALLY up for interpretation. As another extreme example, the 18th amendment was REPEALED because it was later considered a mistake--or was the 21st amendment the mistake? I personally disagree with the 22nd amendment, but I have to abide by it. I'm not above the law. The law is how the courts interpret it to be. I just follow the law. That makes me wrong...how?
Rights are different in interpretation and execution for everyone, apparently. And any time you have many people living together in a society, compromises have to be made. We just have to do the best we can. Laws, rules, restrictions are all there. We don't have an anarchy, much as some would like it that way--we have a democracy. This means we have to take into account all viewpoints.
No, we have a constitutional republic, which means that the people are responsible for holding the government to the rule of law, which it seems most Americans don't have the guts to do.
quote:
By the way, some people ARE panicked at the sight of guns being carried! Especially if they are whipped out and start getting waved around--or shot. What about these innocent people's rights? Or do they have none?
That's totally off topic. Whipping out guns, waving them around and shooting indiscriminately is not in anybody's definition of the second amendment.
And no, innocent people don't have a right to not see guns in public places. If they don't want to see guns in private, that's fine, but in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
quote:
All I'm saying is the courts decide what is right. We can petition for change, but I'm not going to go about seeking change by violating the law. And in this case, I'm not even worried about it. You're not wrong to be worked up, but I'm not wrong for NOT, either.
The courts don't decide what's right; they decide what is law.
*edited for formatting
There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Compromise is losing half. You lose half in this battle. You lose half of the remaining half in the next battle, and so on and so forth.
In other words, compromise is losing slowly.
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
No gun laws before 1934? I think you'd better go re-read your history, fellas. That whole "Shot Heard Round the World" thing? It started because of gun laws.
NICS is in fact a win for us. It's a whole lot better than the mandatory waiting period and indefinite and interminable records searches that we WOULD have if not for such groups as the NRA. It IS a small step towards our goal. But go ahead and rant. All you display is childish irrationality.
OK, I reread my history. I enjoy rereading my history. I still don't see anything about gun laws being involved in the battles of Lexington and Concord. If there were laws involved it would be the laws against treason and rebellion. It was a military operation to disarm the Massachusetts Militia. Not even Ruby Ridge or Waco are parallels. The Brits didn't make any pretense of law enforcement.
What goal is it that we have taken a small step toward?
I should have said no federal gun control laws before 1934. Chicago did have a handgun registration law before that. Some other local laws in various places.
What about the Dred Scott decision? It allowed "negroes" to keep and bear arms, which seems like a big expansion of gun laws.
And earlier, speaking of the Brits, they DID attempt to seize the arms of the colonials--an early attempt at gun control, no? That is I think what Rocky is saying.
James, I don't disagree with you in principle, I'm just illustrating that INTERPRETATION of events figures largely here. I don't pretend I know the answers--in fact I'm sure I don't.
in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
That's right. Thanks for clarifying. This statement is what I've been trying to get across.
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:
It's one thing to take the forums too seriously, and quite another to NOT take Amendment 2 (or 4) seriously, which is clearly the case here.
Our country is in grave danger if our defenders of liberty think as you do. And I take that quite seriously.
You're right to take it seriously. But I just don't see the danger the same way you do. And it's not because I don't take the amendments seriously. I'm just not an "all or nothing" kind of guy. There are compromises in all things--including amendments.
Have you yelled "fire" in a crowded theater lately? The first amendment won't protect you against prosecution--and rightly so.
Owning and carrying firearms does not equal endangering others by inciting panic. You don't have to pass a background check to enter a theater with your voice intact, do you?
Nice try.
Ok, we're going to get ugly, are we? "Nice try"? Don't patronize ME, fella. I don't care who you think you are when you're at home, but on these fora you're just a guy with a keyboard.
My point is valid--there are compromises to EVERYTHING. Every time I have to stay home on a Friday night to watch my kids, my right to "liberty" is restricted. This is obviously a silly example, but the point is, "RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" still requires compromises, so they don't infringe on other people's rights--it's the way of life. Much more the amendments.
Here you compare your self restriction to government restriction. A classic sophism.
quote:Newspapers can't publish seditious or treasonous editorials, in "violation" of the 1st amendment.
No, it is a punishment for caused harm. The medium used is irrelevant.
quote:
Right now, felons can't own guns. What about their 2nd amendment rights?
If you choose to break a law, you give up the limitations placed on government by our Constitution. Is that so difficult to understand?
quote: "Exigency" trumps amendment 4.
No it doesn't. Probable cause AND exigency may, however, but again this is apples and oranges.
quote:The 8th amendment is TOTALLY up for interpretation.
We're dipping into "laughable" territory here. The 8th is no more up for interpretation than any other amendment.
quote:As another extreme example, the 18th amendment was REPEALED because it was later considered a mistake--or was the 21st amendment the mistake?
One should note that this was a restriction that was placed, not on our government, but on the people. The constitution and the amendments establish the meets and bounds of the powers of the US Government. Therefore, it was illogical to restrict the people in amendment 18. In any case, what you have accomplished by noting this, is that there is a proper procedure for changing the limitations of our government and that is the amendment process.
quote:I personally disagree with the 22nd amendment, but I have to abide by it.
again, you miss the point that it is a restriction on government, not on individuals.
quote:I'm not above the law. The law is how the courts interpret it to be. I just follow the law. That makes me wrong...how?
Rights are different in interpretation and execution for everyone, apparently. And any time you have many people living together in a society, compromises have to be made. We just have to do the best we can. Laws, rules, restrictions are all there. We don't have an anarchy, much as some would like it that way--we have a democracy. This means we have to take into account all viewpoints.
By the way, some people ARE panicked at the sight of guns being carried! Especially if they are whipped out and start getting waved around--or shot. What about these innocent people's rights? Or do they have none?
All I'm saying is the courts decide what is right. We can petition for change, but I'm not going to go about seeking change by violating the law. And in this case, I'm not even worried about it. You're not wrong to be worked up, but I'm not wrong for NOT, either.
Choose what is important to you. I would have hoped that as a service member, who is charged with defending our rights, that you might put them as a higher priority. In that I am disappointed, but not at all surprised.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
That's right. Thanks for clarifying. This statement is what I've been trying to get across.
Brilliant. You took half a sentence out of context to "prove" that you're right.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
That's right. Thanks for clarifying. This statement is what I've been trying to get across.
Brilliant. You took half a sentence out of context to "prove" that you're right.
Ok, Chief. Whatever you say. You and "Mr. Perfect" (HA!) can't have it both ways. He tells me in one sentence:
"Choose what is important to you."
Then in the next sentence: "I would have hoped that as a service member, who is charged with defending our rights, that you might put them as a higher priority. In that I am disappointed, but not at all surprised", suggesting that I should NOT choose what is important to ME, but to HIM. And YOU, cce, are apparently unable to understand that people may disagree with you, and that PERHAPS they are not WRONG.
Why the vitriol? Is it so worth it to you? I just can't get so worked up about it. My opinion is my own, and even WITH my opinion, I'm not so uppity as to suggest you are WRONG. I just disagree.
Then I studied a lot learned that I was wrong. And I changed.
BTW, most people can see right through the "I'm so humble I'm going to disagree with you without saying that I think you're wrong" act. It's pretty transparent.
(If you just take the 3 words in my 2d line "I was wrong" and quote that out of context, then you can put a notch in your belt for this thread)
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
in public they have to compromise their opinion and live in a world where things they may not like actually exist.
That's right. Thanks for clarifying. This statement is what I've been trying to get across.
Brilliant. You took half a sentence out of context to "prove" that you're right.
Ok, Chief. Whatever you say. You and "Mr. Perfect" (HA!) can't have it both ways. He tells me in one sentence:
"Choose what is important to you."
Then in the next sentence: "I would have hoped that as a service member, who is charged with defending our rights, that you might put them as a higher priority. In that I am disappointed, but not at all surprised", suggesting that I should NOT choose what is important to ME, but to HIM. And YOU, cce, are apparently unable to understand that people may disagree with you, and that PERHAPS they are not WRONG.
Why the vitriol? Is it so worth it to you? I just can't get so worked up about it. My opinion is my own, and even WITH my opinion, I'm not so uppity as to suggest you are WRONG. I just disagree.
I implore you to choose what it is that is important to you, but suggest that you choose something other than what you have. Is that so hard to understand? Perhaps this is why you don't understand the importance of the founding documents.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
A couple years ago, I agreed with you, Navybat.
Then I studied a lot learned that I was wrong. And I changed.
BTW, most people can see right through the "I'm so humble I'm going to disagree with you without saying that I think you're wrong" act. It's pretty transparent.
(If you just take the 3 words in my 2d line "I was wrong" and quote that out of context, then you can put a notch in your belt for this thread)
Well, I still don't think you're WRONG--I applaud anyone who is passionate about a position (even PETA, and the liberals, misguided though I think they may be). I guess you're saying I'm naive, as well as transparent. I've been called worse.
But I do think right now the system, as pertains to gun laws, is ok. I'm not worried about it. You, "Mr. Perfect", and many here are. So be it. If you can change the system, more power to you. But I don't think I'm wrong if I think it doesn't need fixing.
I will simply compare and contrast your 'wrongness' with the text of Amendment II...
Amendment II
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.
Nuff said.[;)]
quote:But I do think right now the system, as pertains to gun laws, is ok. I'm not worried about it. You, "Mr. Perfect", and many here are. So be it. If you can change the system, more power to you. But I don't think I'm wrong if I think it doesn't need fixing.Thinking one is not wrong and factually being correct are two different beasts.
I will simply compare and contrast your 'wrongness' with the text of Amendment II...
Amendment II
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.
Nuff said.[;)]
Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Wait, wait. I thought YOU told ME I didn't understand the constitution. Well, well, well..."Mr. Perfect" isn't so perfect.
The constitution clearly (in Article III) states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Article III ALSO says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
Umm...for you, as someone who believes in simplicity, this seems pretty simple, no?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Wait, wait. I thought YOU told ME I didn't understand the constitution. Well, well, well..."Mr. Perfect" isn't so perfect.
The constitution clearly (in Article III) states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Article III ALSO says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
Umm...for you, as someone who believes in simplicity, this seems pretty simple, no?
So, point me to the part which says that power includes interpretation of the constitution itself. The law and equity are UNDER the constitution, as is clearly stated.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
This is what the Constitution says about the Supreme Court. It talks about the Supreme Court deciding what conforms to the Constitution, but I don't see anything about "Interpreting" the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States of America
ARTICLE III.
SECTION 1. The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
SECTION 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a state shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Wait, wait. I thought YOU told ME I didn't understand the constitution. Well, well, well..."Mr. Perfect" isn't so perfect.
The constitution clearly (in Article III) states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Article III ALSO says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
Umm...for you, as someone who believes in simplicity, this seems pretty simple, no?
So, point me to the part which says that power includes interpretation of the constitution itself. The law and equity are UNDER the constitution, as is clearly stated.
Oh my GOD. There's no talking to you. That's the WHOLE POINT of sending cases to the Supreme Court--so they can determine the constitutionality of the law being violated, and interpret the law in the particular case! I visited the Clerk of the Supreme Court in his office no more than 3 months ago! He told me this himself! This is their role! Arggghhh. My 9 year old understands this...[xx(]
Ok, fine. If you won't believe ME, and you won't even believe the CONSTITUTION, here's a quote directly from the website of the US SUPREME COURT ITSELF. And here's the link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Please, PLEASE argue with this.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Navybat
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Sigh. And I refer you to so many other examples of how black and white texts such as this are "interpreted" all the time, such as the first amendment, etc. etc. The Second Amendment HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. There are restrictions on gun ownership TO CITIZENS. Right or wrong, it's a fact, for example excluding it to felons. And I have no problem with it. "Nuff said."
I'm wrong? Says you. The courts say otherwise. You know more about law than the courts? I don't.Yes, you are wrong. Not says 'me', but says Amendment II, which, by the way has never been amended, abolished or modified and thus, remains an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon an individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, the courts say otherwise and they do not have the constitutional 'authority' to modify a fundamental right, so therefore, they are wrong also.
No, the courts know far more about 'the law' than I do, because they operate under the scam of 'Stare Decisis' and judicial tyranny and fiat in cases involving the Constitution.
They are still wrong in their fiat rulings on Amendment II and almost all other fundamental liberty issues. It is obvious that I am far more attuned to and understanding of Amendment II than the courts are, however.
Laws and rulings against the text of the Constitution and BOR's are null & void, IMMO.
There are your facts.
Nuff said.
Ok, so be it. You are above the law. Got it. Now that I know the rules you live by, we can move on.
Above the law? The constitution is the highest law in the land!
And our courts are the ones designated and authorized to interpret it. With the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. So THEY determine what the constitution says and what it means. Not you, not me, and not lt. Try telling the judge that he/she doesn't understand the law...
Funny, I don't see that power anointed to their position by the constitution.[:I]
Wait, wait. I thought YOU told ME I didn't understand the constitution. Well, well, well..."Mr. Perfect" isn't so perfect.
The constitution clearly (in Article III) states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Article III ALSO says "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."
Umm...for you, as someone who believes in simplicity, this seems pretty simple, no?
So, point me to the part which says that power includes interpretation of the constitution itself. The law and equity are UNDER the constitution, as is clearly stated.
Oh my GOD. There's no talking to you. That's the WHOLE POINT of sending cases to the Supreme Court--so they can determine the constitutionality of the law being violated, and interpret the law in the particular case! I visited the Clerk of the Supreme Court in his office no more than 3 months ago! He told me this himself! This is their role! Arggghhh. My 9 year old understands this...[xx(]
Ok, fine. If you won't believe ME, and you won't even believe the CONSTITUTION, here's a quote directly from the website of the US SUPREME COURT ITSELF. And here's the link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Please, PLEASE argue with this.
Of course I believe the constitution. Did you miss that I do? It appears you are the one who is unable to grasp its clear language. Furthermore, justices can banter about what their duties are all they want, but what duties they are charged with are clearly enumerated. Why should I listen to some Tom, Dick, or Harry SC judge, when what he says is clearly not supported by the document that gives him the powers he has?
These are not riddles we're discussing here. The document was written in plain language!
Further still, I charged you with pointing to the language of the Constitution which enumerated the SC's power to interpret the Constitution, and rather than do that, you pointed to some irrelevant opinion piece! Classic sophism, of which you are king!
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
"Marshall and Jefferson present two diametrically opposed views of the nature of constitutional interpretation, and it is regrettable that Marshall's view has been virtually uncontested in the United States during the past century; Jefferson was correct to warn that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices."
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/02/john-marshall-vs-thomas-jefferson-on-constitutional-interpretation/
This is a very good article on constitutional interpretation.
"Marshall and Jefferson present two diametrically opposed views of the nature of constitutional interpretation, and it is regrettable that Marshall's view has been virtually uncontested in the United States during the past century; Jefferson was correct to warn that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices."
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/02/john-marshall-vs-thomas-jefferson-on-constitutional-interpretation/
excellent post. Thanks.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain