Politicspoliticskekkekistanfrogpeperedpillayalolahwalkawayblexitpelosishutdown

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 06:56 PM

Nobody wants to take your guns away

Fucking commie bastards.

Virginia’s Democrat Gov. Pushes Gun Confiscation Orders, Criminalization of Private Sales



Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) proposed gun confiscation orders, criminalization of private gun sales, an “assault weapons” ban, and other gun controls on Friday.
Northam claimed these controls will reduce “gun violence” although all evidence actually points to the contrary.

Northam tweeted: “This morning I announced a broad package of reasonable legislation to prevent gun violence and improve Virginia’s public safety. I look forward to having a dialogue with the General Assembly this session on these important issues.”


146 replies, 2387 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 146 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nobody wants to take your guns away (Original post)
MumblyPeg Jan 2019 OP
Nostrings Jan 2019 #1
Carl Jan 2019 #2
Cold Warrior Jan 2019 #3
Carl Jan 2019 #4
MumblyPeg Jan 2019 #6
Red Bull Jan 2019 #5
rahtruelies Jan 2019 #7
Trevor Jan 2019 #8
Carl Jan 2019 #9
Trevor Jan 2019 #11
Carl Jan 2019 #14
Trevor Jan 2019 #16
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #27
Carl Jan 2019 #50
Trevor Jan 2019 #51
Carl Jan 2019 #66
Trevor Jan 2019 #71
Nostrings Jan 2019 #73
Trevor Jan 2019 #75
Nostrings Jan 2019 #77
Trevor Jan 2019 #80
Nostrings Jan 2019 #83
Trevor Jan 2019 #88
Nostrings Jan 2019 #89
Trevor Jan 2019 #91
Nostrings Jan 2019 #94
Trevor Jan 2019 #95
Nostrings Jan 2019 #96
Trevor Jan 2019 #98
Nostrings Jan 2019 #102
Trevor Jan 2019 #105
Nostrings Jan 2019 #106
Trevor Jan 2019 #109
Nostrings Jan 2019 #114
Trevor Jan 2019 #123
Nostrings Jan 2019 #127
Trevor Jan 2019 #130
Nostrings Jan 2019 #133
Trevor Jan 2019 #135
Nostrings Jan 2019 #138
Trevor Jan 2019 #141
Nostrings Jan 2019 #142
Trevor Jan 2019 #144
Nostrings Jan 2019 #145
Charlie Mike Jan 2019 #139
Carl Jan 2019 #79
Trevor Jan 2019 #81
Carl Jan 2019 #82
Trevor Jan 2019 #86
Carl Jan 2019 #92
Nostrings Jan 2019 #84
Nostrings Jan 2019 #17
Trevor Jan 2019 #19
Nostrings Jan 2019 #20
MumblyPeg Jan 2019 #10
Trevor Jan 2019 #12
MumblyPeg Jan 2019 #13
Trevor Jan 2019 #15
MumblyPeg Jan 2019 #18
Trevor Jan 2019 #21
MumblyPeg Jan 2019 #24
Trevor Jan 2019 #29
MumblyPeg Jan 2019 #31
Trevor Jan 2019 #33
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #38
Trevor Jan 2019 #40
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #42
Nostrings Jan 2019 #122
TM999 Jan 2019 #46
Trevor Jan 2019 #53
TM999 Jan 2019 #54
Trevor Jan 2019 #56
TM999 Jan 2019 #62
Trevor Jan 2019 #68
TM999 Jan 2019 #101
Trevor Jan 2019 #104
TM999 Jan 2019 #111
Nostrings Jan 2019 #117
Trevor Jan 2019 #126
TM999 Jan 2019 #129
Trevor Jan 2019 #136
TM999 Jan 2019 #137
Trevor Jan 2019 #143
TM999 Jan 2019 #146
Carl Jan 2019 #67
Hades Jan 2019 #52
Crazy D Jan 2019 #57
Trevor Jan 2019 #58
Hades Jan 2019 #65
Nostrings Jan 2019 #25
Trevor Jan 2019 #30
Nostrings Jan 2019 #48
Trevor Jan 2019 #59
Nostrings Jan 2019 #61
Trevor Jan 2019 #69
Nostrings Jan 2019 #70
Trevor Jan 2019 #72
Nostrings Jan 2019 #74
Trevor Jan 2019 #76
Nostrings Jan 2019 #78
Trevor Jan 2019 #85
Nostrings Jan 2019 #87
Trevor Jan 2019 #90
Nostrings Jan 2019 #93
Trevor Jan 2019 #97
Nostrings Jan 2019 #99
Trevor Jan 2019 #100
Nostrings Jan 2019 #103
Trevor Jan 2019 #107
Nostrings Jan 2019 #108
Trevor Jan 2019 #112
Nostrings Jan 2019 #115
Trevor Jan 2019 #125
Nostrings Jan 2019 #128
Trevor Jan 2019 #131
Nostrings Jan 2019 #132
Trevor Jan 2019 #134
TM999 Jan 2019 #113
Nostrings Jan 2019 #116
TM999 Jan 2019 #118
Nostrings Jan 2019 #119
TM999 Jan 2019 #120
Nostrings Jan 2019 #121
kevlar Jan 2019 #22
Nostrings Jan 2019 #23
Trevor Jan 2019 #34
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #36
Trevor Jan 2019 #43
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #45
Nostrings Jan 2019 #49
Trevor Jan 2019 #60
Nostrings Jan 2019 #63
Hades Jan 2019 #140
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #28
Trevor Jan 2019 #32
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #35
Trevor Jan 2019 #39
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #41
Trevor Jan 2019 #44
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #47
Trevor Jan 2019 #64
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #37
357blackhawk Jan 2019 #26
Currentsitguy Jan 2019 #55
Nostrings Jan 2019 #110
Banshee 3 Actual Jan 2019 #124

Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 07:01 PM

1. What a scumbag.

The asshole also veto'd a bill that would ban sanctuary cities, breaking a campaign promise.

https://cis.org/Huennekens/Virginia-Governor-Breaks-Campaign-Promise-Vetoes-AntiSanctuary-Cities-Bill

Virginia Governor Breaks Campaign Promise, Vetoes Anti-Sanctuary Cities Bill

By Preston Huennekens on April 11, 2018
In the heat of the highly contested 2017 Virginia governor's race, Democratic candidate Ralph Northam declared that he would, if elected governor, sign a bill banning sanctuary cities in Virginia. On signing any future anti-sanctuary legislation, Northam said that "If that bill comes to by desk ... I sure will. I've always been opposed to sanctuary cities. Republican candidate Ed Gillespie knows that."

He said this despite having cast the tie-breaking vote in his capacity as lieutenant governor that killed an earlier attempt at this legislation.

On April 9, Northam reneged on this campaign promise and vetoed HB 1257, which would have prohibited the establishment of sanctuary cities in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 07:02 PM

2. Democrats always lie to get elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 07:07 PM

3. ? Did this guy campaign on a pro-gun agenda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 07:11 PM

4. Did you read post #1?

Or do you need someone to read it to you?

I was commenting on that post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 07:26 PM

6. comprehension and awareness aren't among the things in his "skillset"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 07:21 PM

5. This is absolutely why almost all

Of my guns are off books with no tie to me. My handguns have to be registered but they can end up stolen.

All rifles, carbines, bullpups and shotguns have no connection to me. If anyone who owns firearms has half a brain they need to move most of it off books.

If you have to you register a couple of bolt action rifles and a shotgun or two to hunt and have in the house for self defense. All the rest should not be tied to you in anyway, shape or form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 08:36 PM

7. Va needa a Revolution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 08:49 PM

8. Doesn't look like mass gun confiscation to me

Mass gun confiscation is one of the right wing's persecution fantasies. Here's what the bill does:

They include:

• The “Extreme Risk Protective Order,” sponsored by Del. Richard C. “Rip” Sullivan Jr. (D-Fairfax) and Sen. George L. Barker (D-Alexandria), which would allow a court to temporarily prohibit someone from access to his firearms if the person has been found to pose a danger to himself or others. In response to concerns raised by Republicans last year that such power could be misused, the proposal specifies that any removal order would have to be brought by law enforcement and approved by a judge or magistrate.

• A bill requiring background checks on all gun sales, including private sales at gun shows or online. The measure is sponsored by Del. Kenneth R. Plum (D-Fairfax) and Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth).

• A revival of Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law, which had been in effect for nearly 20 years when it was repealed in 2012. Sponsored by Del. Jeion A. Ward (D-Hampton) and Sen. Mamie E. Locke (D-Hampton), the measure would “prevent people from stockpiling firearms and transporting them for sale in other states,” Northam’s office said.

Other measures would keep guns out of the hands of someone who is under a protective court order; require gun owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 24 hours; and increase the penalty for leaving unsecured firearms near children.

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

I don't see anything there about banning private sales either, although a background check would be required.

I think this is an example of right wing anger and hatred generated by lies from the right wing media. Its a shame how RWs carry all that around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/sensing-an-opening-virginia-governor-revives-push-for-gun-control/2019/01/04/b1636280-103f-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.2ba49e5ea8de

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 09:11 PM

9. Your first point is a multiple violation of the Bill of Rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 09:17 PM

11. I assume you think it violates the Second Amendment

That isn't true because the Second only protects a right that existed at the time of passage. Under that right it was OK to confiscate guns from crazy people. I don't know what other right you think is violated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 09:29 PM

14. Have you ever heard about the 4th,5th and 6th?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:09 PM

16. Yes, I've heard of them, others too.

Why don't you communicate how specifically any of these proposals violates them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:59 PM

27. Violates the fifth amendement by

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 08:01 AM

50. The first point has no due process requirements.

Amendment 4
- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5
- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 6
- Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 11:36 AM

51. Cutting and pasting doesn't get it this time.

You were asked to explain how one of these rules violates one of the amendments, not what the amendments say. I can google them myself for that.

The civil procedures to keep guns from dangerous people don't have as much due process as you like but one does have to get approval from a judge or magistrate which is as much due process as any civil commitment gets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 03:45 PM

66. Stop being willfully obtuse.

You know damn well how that first point violates the words of all those.

There is no provision for evidence to be rebutted.
There is what amounts to a seizure with no actual presumption of innocence.

You are now making a fool of yourself if you say you can`t grasp how that violates each one of those 3 without even taking the 2nd into account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:50 PM

71. There are opportunities for rebuttal

after a temporary order is in place. In fact, the burden of proof shifts.

Here's something from your side:

Klukowski: Second Amendment and Due Process Allow NRA-Backed White House Proposal on “Extreme Risk Protection Orders”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/03/13/klukowski-second-amendment-and-due-process-allow-nra-backed-white-house-proposal-on-extreme-risk-protection-orders/

I don't think you are capable of explaining things you claim are true.

I might add that if somebody commits a serious crime they are temporarily locked up with no due process. Then the courts get involved. Nothing different than that here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:56 PM

73. A right delayed is a right denied, does that sound familiar?

"I might add that if somebody commits a serious crime they are temporarily locked up with no due process. Then the courts get involved. Nothing different than that here."

You're wrong.

Theres the second amendment that is an additional layer of 'no, government, you can't do that' (which you're choosing to ignore) because guns are involved.

Locking someone up for committing a crime relies on due process protections in another amendment.

What you're arguing for, is for government to go sailing through not just one, but two amendments and likely three amendments, and you either do not understand that, or you're in denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:05 PM

75. Did you read that link I gave you?

I suspect you didn't. Its from your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:13 PM

77. Yes, I did. The author is wrong.

Nowhere in any of the amendments is exception language contained, stating who a right does or does not apply to.

Furthermore, this is the wrong context to even be discussing this matter in.

It isn't "rights" we're talking about. Its restrictions which protect them.

As such, a government either respects and obeys the restrictions which apply to it, or it comes up with exceptions and excuses, most of which are with an end in mind other than legitimately obeying those restrictions.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:28 PM

80. Sorry, I had you mixed up with Carl because of the structure of this chain.

Did you read the link I gave Carl?

Amendments are statements of principle and don't give details. Its up to courts to decide what they mean. From the article:

"Justice Scalia on the Second Amendment: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them…”—District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)"

Justice Scalia wasn't the type of guy to come up with "excuses" for liberal causes.

I don't get what your difference between rights and restrictions is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:52 PM

83. Sigh.

"I don't get what your difference between rights and restrictions is."

The second amendment is not a right. Its a restriction on government which protects a right.

A right and a restriction which protects a right are not the same thing.





""Justice Scalia on the Second Amendment: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them…”—District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)"

Justice Scalia wasn't the type of guy to come up with "excuses" for liberal causes."


Lots of other justices are though, and, scalia wasn't the originalist many wished he was. The scope of the right to keep and bear at the time when the people adopted it, was to buy and possess arms up to and including fully armed warships free of governmental interference.

Do you dispute that?

Background checks were unheard of, as was the notion of free men forbidden from bearing arms.

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms".

That quote ring a bell trevor?


ETA: read this as many times as it takes to understand it:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One s right to life liberty and property to free speech a free press freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

― Robert H. Jackson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 06:41 PM

88. Your last paragraph is very fundamental

Of course I understand it.

I'm not alone disputing your unlimited right to arms at the time of the founding. Here's from Heller:

" We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874)."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #88)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 06:50 PM

89. The only person that said "unlimited" is you.

You're misrepresenting, as you often do, when you can't argue your point in your own words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #89)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 07:07 PM

91. You said this:

"The scope of the right to keep and bear at the time when the people adopted it, was to buy and possess arms up to and including fully armed warships free of governmental interference."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 07:33 PM

94. Yes I did.

Are you saying that people could NOT buy and possess arms up to and including fully armed warships free of governmental interference on that day?

Because they most certainly could.

Are you so historically ignorant as to think there were gun regulating agencies back then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 08:07 PM

95. Heller says not

They relied in part on a definition in Blackstone from 1769.

Blackstone, Book 4, Chapter 11.

9. THE offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. III. c. 3. upon pain of forfeiture of the arms, and imprisonment during the king's pleasure: in like manner as, by the laws of Solon, every Athenian was finable who walked about the city in armour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #95)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 08:13 PM

96. Heller wasn't law then, nor did it exist then. Could you possibly fail any harder?



Try thinking and arguing for yourself once, trevor.

It should be painless.


People could buy and possess arms up to and including fully armed warships free of governmental interference on that day.

That is historically, factually accurate.

No supreme court decision can change past history trevor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #96)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 08:26 PM

98. Blackstone was the most recognized authority on what the law was back then.

And Blackstone in 1769 disagreed with you. I haven't failed all all, except to penetrate the impenetrable. Heller found what the law was then and no doubt did a better job of it than you. They used history. You can't change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 11:49 PM

102. No, heller did not find what the law was then.

It decided how they're going to look at then, now.

It did not and can not go back in time .

Heller does not invalidate any previous convictions before it was ruled as law, which would have been tossed as unconstitutional after, for example.

Right now, having read that, you should feel very stupid.

You've been proven wrong wrong wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #102)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 12:23 AM

105. The link I gave you had footnotes.

Those go back in time. Do you know the first thing about how cases are decided? They cite precedent. That means they go back in time.

I shouldn't feel stupid. You should. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I thought you liked originalism. That involves going back and find out what was meant at the time of passage. That's why the court looked at Blackstone for 1769. I haven't been proved wrong. I'm arguing a completed ruling and you are coming up with stuff that comes from nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #105)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 12:39 AM

106. You don't understand what you read.

"Those go back in time."

No they do not go back in time. They purport to LOOK back in time.

Theres a big difference.



"I shouldn't feel stupid. You should. You have no idea what you are talking about."

Yes, you should, trevor, and yes, I really do know of what I speak. Heller is effective from the day it is made law forward. It does not apply backward. It can not undo a conviction which happened before it was ruled on.

It does not "go" back in time, it purports to look back in time.

Again, there is a difference.



"I thought you liked originalism."

Genuine originalism, yes. You haven't really gone there though.


"I'm arguing a completed ruling and you are coming up with stuff that comes from nowhere."

You're arguing a case which hadn't happened on the day and time we're discussing it in.

I'm discussing this in the context of when there had been no judicial review. That means none of the SCOTUS cases you continue to cite have happened yet, and citing them is outside the context of the discussion. You have to make your own arguments in your own words, which you seem very incapable of doing.

You seem, not to understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:04 AM

109. Go back in time obviously means look back in time.

You come up with quibbles like that just to try to be a pain. Why do you think the court only "purported" to look back? I'm certain they genuinely did.

You have brought up the retroactivity of Heller. I haven't said a word about it. I don't see the point you are trying to make with it. Do you understand retroactivity and the law?

"Given the confusion and inconsistencies currently present in the retroactivity analysis of lower federal courts, it is suggested that more useful guidelines be developed in this complex area of the law. More importantly, it is also suggested that doctrinal development should take into account the practical problems of applying doctrine, and not merely such considerations as fairness or the abstract logical appeal of a doctrine. These questions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts . . ..
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, 1940

The back in time was about determining what was meant at the time of passage. That's originalism. That's what the court did in Heller.

I don't know which case I'm arguing that hasn't happened. It brought up bump stocks as an example for a question for you about your test prong. I wasn't arguing a case. I haven't cited any cases that haven't happened yet. How on earth could I? I used my own words when needed. Sometimes its better to cut and paste to show you something.

You understand very few things which I do not, at least when it comes to politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #109)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:27 AM

114. The predictable equivocation.

"You come up with quibbles like that just to try to be a pain."

Incorrect.

Lets go back to what I said.

"The scope of the right to keep and bear at the time when the people adopted it, was to buy and possess arms up to and including fully armed warships free of governmental interference."

That is a factual truth.

Your cite deals with public carry. If you were a better reader, you'd have noted that public carry was not listed by me as being within the scope of the right at the time in the above quote, and would not have tried to refute an assertion I wasn't making.

Dumbass.

"You have brought up the retroactivity of Heller. I haven't said a word about it. I don't see the point you are trying to make with it. Do you understand retroactivity and the law?"

Your response to my quote above was "heller says". Its not retroactive, and on that day, heller didn't exist.

For purposes of THIS discussion, taking place on the day of passage, it is irrelevant.

It does not and can not go back in time. Get it now?



"I don't know which case I'm arguing that hasn't happened."

If we're arguing about things the day the bill of rights was passed into law, anything that came after is inapplicable, because it has not happened at the time we agree we are having this conversation at.

This discussion is in the context of as if the date were December 15, 1791.

Therefore you don't get to cut and paste cites. You have to argue YOUR OWN case.

I have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #114)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 12:23 AM

123. Your scope is incomplete

I've cut and pasted the section in Blackstone that is an exception. I've cut and pasted where the Supreme Court cited it. You deny that the existing right at the time of passage had any allowance for regulating weapons. I don't know what more I can do than give you flat out proof you are wrong.

Passage of the Amendment wasn't complete on one day. It had to be ratified.

I haven't said anything about public carry, so the rest of that comment makes no sense.

Heller hadn't been decided when the Amendment passed but Heller covers what did happen at that time. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to be really twisting things around. Heller wasn't in 1791 but it covers what was, so its well worth looking at for deciding what did happen on the day you wish to discuss.

I cut and paste because I back up my posts with evidence. I also cite authorities who know more about what we are talking about than we do. I'm giving you a well established point of view. You come up with crazy things all on your own. You have no evidence at all for them. I'll stick with my style. Its the common way of debating things. Many ideas I give you are from me. But they've been honed over years of study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #123)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 12:58 AM

127. No it isn't, you just can't argue in this context.

"Passage of the Amendment wasn't complete on one day. It had to be ratified."

You stup...jesus trevor, no matter any of that, there is still "a first day it was effective as law", thats the day we're having this discussion on.

We're stepping back in time, contextually. You don't get to cite cites, you have to argue on your own. there is no such thing as the supreme court yet, as we know it in modern times.


"You deny that the existing right at the time of passage had any allowance for regulating weapons."

Incorrect.

I CLAIM that at the time of passage, that there were NO regulations as to who could own or buy what, up to and including fully armed warships.

This is a historical fact. Do we agree? Good. I'm taking baby steps just for you.

I claim, that since there were no regulations at that time, that the right could be exercised to a a very full scope. My evidence and measurement of just how full that scope was? That people could buy and own arms, from the knife to the pistol to the rifle to the fully armed warship, without governmental interference.

Still with me? Good.


Now, you said that Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, did you not?

I CLAIM that the right to keep and bear arms has been infringed well farther than the scope it ACTUALLY had as I just got done measuring, factually and historically, for you.


How will you reconcile this without leaning on a cite? Can you? I'll just bet not.



"I'll stick with my style. Its the common way of debating things."

Jesus. You aren't even right about that. In a *genuine* debate you don't get to pause and check google, you stupid shit. You have to use your own words, your own arguments.

You're confusing "how you argue on the internet", with what *I* am trying for, real and genuine debate using only your wits and your own knowledge to support your arguments and positions.

Are you capable of that, mister 'honed over years of study", or aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #127)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 01:04 AM

130. ....

"I CLAIM that at the time of passage, that there were NO regulations as to who could own or buy what, up to and including fully armed warships."

I've shown you proof that there was. You refused to consider it. I disagree with your historic fact because I consider reality. Go back to Blackstone. There were regulations.

Debate is a broad term that is used many ways. It doesn't just mean Lincoln v Douglas. A court case is a debate. Lawyers argue and produce evidence. That't the same as I do here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate

I do use my own wits. I'm more concerned with getting things right that establishing my originality. Much of what I write is original, but I'm not bound by doing that. It takes some skills to decide which things to link to and which things to argue.

I think you should back up what your say. Show me where it says at the time of the Second Amendment's passage there was unlimited right to get any weapon desired.

You do make observations and conclusions I've never seen anyone else make. I think that is because nobody else is as extreme as you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #130)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 03:42 AM

133. Now you're lying.

"I've shown you proof that there was" is a flat out lie.

I said this:

"I CLAIM that at the time of passage, that there were NO regulations at the FEDERAL level as to who could own or buy what, up to and including fully armed warships."

You replied with this:

"I've shown you proof that there was. You refused to consider it."

You didn't read what you provided, then, because what you provided was ONLY about gun carry, and it wasn't a FEDERAL regulation at the time the protection of the right was enshrined in law.

See? You THINK you're refuting my points, but in truth you are not. You've provided NOTHING from that time that disproves what I claim people could own and buy on that day.

NOTHING.




"I disagree with your historic fact because I consider reality."

Reality, trevor, is that on that day, people could buy what I claimed they could buy without FEDERAL government interference. The scope of the right was LITERALLY unlimited on that day, on the FEDERAL level.

You have failed to provide anything in the form of federal regulation that existed that day, counter to my claim.





"Go back to Blackstone. There were regulations."

Again, You have failed to provide anything in the form of federal regulation that existed that day, counter to my claim.




"Much of what I write is original, but I'm not bound by doing that."

Are you simply unable to measure the scope of the right at that time for yourself, to the point where you need someone else to tell you what it was, and are you stuck taking their word for it because you can't judge for yourself?

You said that rights are enshrined with the understanding of the scope they had when passed into law. What you and I are doing here is going back to when it was enshrined into law and looking for ourselves what the scope actually was at that time, rather than looking at what someone else said it was years, decades, or a century plus after the fact. I'm sorry you don't like having your appeal to authority card revoked, but thats how discussions such as these work.

Looking at what the scope actually was when passed into law, the scope is quite broad. There were no FEDERAL laws about who could buy or possess, or what they could buy or possess on that day.

Federally, the scope was literally unlimited on that day.

If you dispute that, provide some evidence to the contrary in the form of FEDERAL law on that day or concede that you can not, and concede the point.




"I think you should back up what your say. Show me where it says at the time of the Second Amendment's passage there was unlimited right to get any weapon desired."

Remember what I told you about asking the wrong question and getting the wrong answer?

You're doing that now in statement form.



I'll walk you through it again, trevor:

I CLAIM that at the time of passage, that there were NO FEDERAL regulations as to who could own or buy what, up to and including fully armed warships. The scope was LITERALLY unlimited on the FEDERAL level as it pertains to buy and possess on that day.

This is a historical fact. Do we agree? If so, good.

If not, put forth evidence in the form of FEDERAL ownership/possession regulations on that day that refutes my specific claim or concede the point. Thats how debates work.



I further claim, that since there were no pertinent FEDERAL regulations on that day, that the right could be exercised to a a full and federally unlimited scope for purchase and possession.

My evidence of a full unlimited scope for purchase and possession? That people could buy and own arms, from the knife to the pistol to the rifle to the fully armed warship, without FEDERAL governmental interference. That FEDERALLY, the scope of the right was LITERALLY unlimited as it pertained to purchase and possession on that day.

Again, The scope was LITERALLY unlimited on the FEDERAL level as it pertains to buy and possess on that day.

Again, This is a historical fact. Do we agree? If so, good.

If not, put forth evidence that refutes this specific claim, in the form of FEDERAL purchase and ownership regulations on that day or concede the point. Thats how debates work.



Now, you said that Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, did you not?

I CLAIM that the right to keep and bear arms has been infringed well farther than the scope it ACTUALLY had as I just got done quantifying, factually and historically, in front of your own eyes.

If you can't put forth evidence from that refutes my two previous claims, all 3 claims stand.

Thats how debate works.




"You do make observations and conclusions I've never seen anyone else make."

I can imagine, you strike me as very used to simplistic discussions, and quite accustomed to and disturbingly comfortable with having others do your thinking and determining for you.



"I think that is because nobody else is as extreme as you are."

If that doesn't just say it all...the guy who signed his name to judicial activism is calling me extreme.


You think what you think, because you are inexperienced and trying to swim in the deep end of the pool with the experienced kids, and because very obviously you haven't participated in much of any real debate, and because you simply do not know any better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #133)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:15 PM

135. No. You are lying about using the word federal

At least you didn't use it in this post:

"I CLAIM that at the time of passage, that there were NO regulations as to who could own or buy what, up to and including fully armed warships."

I remind you that on the day it passed the Amendment set out to preserve a right that was already in existence well before the amendment passed. So if the existing right wasn't absolute then the amendment wasn't, federal or not. I believe the original right was Common Law.

I've tried to chase down more about the law cited from Blackstone but I can't find anything that backs up Scalia's determination that the law was a limit on types of weapons. It seemed be aimed more at threatening behavior. I'm not sure though, because if Scalia used it to limit weapons types he probably had a good reason.

Debates work best when both side back up their claims. Its unfair for you to demand I do it but refuse to yourself.

I'm not all that impressed with your skill either. I've been debating righties on the the net since back when Clinton was president. I'm not inexperienced.

Even if people weren't limited in their choice of weapons that doesn't mean they had a right to them, so your produce or fail idea isn't sound.

I'm not certain it was OK for just anybody to own a warship. I've seen some reference to them being licensed. The privateers were required to have letters of Marque and Reprisal before they could use them in combat. I'm just guessing but I think if somebody had a warship with no apparent reason he would have been suspected of piracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #135)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 09:59 AM

138. Retract that accusation.

We're talking about the second amendment, pre incorporation against the states. BY definition, we've been talking strictly about federal law this whole time.
It seemed that the fact that we were was unclear to you, so I added it for your benefit.

So retract that accusation.

"I remind you that on the day it passed the Amendment set out to preserve a right that was already in existence well before the amendment passed. "

This is a meaningless statement. We've already established that ALL rights belong to the people, and that all things begin legal and unlimited by government.

Unlimited by government is by definition, absolute.


"I'm not all that impressed with your skill either. I've been debating righties on the the net since back when Clinton was president. I'm not inexperienced."

Because you simply do not know any better.


"Even if people weren't limited in their choice of weapons that doesn't mean they had a right to them, so your produce or fail idea isn't sound."

ALL rights belong to the people, and without governental limits placed on them, they are by definition unlimited.

Furthermore, what you declined to add, was a legitimate argument that those people DID NOT have a right to them.

A seasoned experienced debater would not have made such a mistake unless they couldn't make that case.

Can you make that case? NO. You can not.



"The privateers were required to have letters of Marque and Reprisal before they could use them in combat"

Privateers. It isn't combat for which the letters were issued, it was combat on behalf of America.

No such letter was required or necessary to defend ones self if attacked by pirates or other enemies.

Yes, you are just guessing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #138)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 10:46 PM

141. We've talked about aspects of the Amendment, not all federal law

You came up with the illegitimate demand that only federal regulations banning types of weapons count later on in the discussion. And I'm not retracting calling you a liar. Note your quotations marks - you claimed you said this,

"I CLAIM that at the time of passage, that there were NO regulations at the FEDERAL level as to who could own or buy what, up to and including fully armed warships."

I scrolled back through the thread and can't find anywhere where you said that. Why are you claiming you did? You like to twist things around, that's why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #141)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 11:01 PM

142. The second amendment at the time of its passing was not incorporated against the states.

When we talk about it in that context we're talking strictly about the arena of federal law, whether we specify that we are or not. You made it necessary to specify because you attempted to argue outside that context.

Retract calling me a liar.

"You came up with the illegitimate demand that only federal regulations banning types of weapons count later on in the discussion."

It isn't illegitimate and its not a demand.

Its a simple fact that only a federal regulation would be applicable when looking at federal limits on the exercise of a constitutional right the day it was enshrined into law.

So cut the bull.

"I scrolled back through the thread and can't find anywhere where you said that. Why are you claiming you did? You like to twist things around, that's why."

There is nothing twisted. Even when I didn't specify usIing the word 'FEDERAL', the subject was still federal law.

Its always BEEN federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 11:11 PM

144. You used quotation marks.

You claimed you said it.

The way the conversation developed it was appropriate to bring up any restriction on firearms because that illuminates the meaning of the amendment. Judge Scalia brought it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #144)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 11:46 PM

145. I DID say it, and whether I specified or not, the sentiment was the same.

"The way the conversation developed it was appropriate to bring up any restriction on firearms because that illuminates the meaning of the amendment."

The meaning of the amendment at the time was with respect to federal law and government only.

Looking at state or local regulations would be looking outside the federal scope of the second amendment at the time. It was not incorporated against the states.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the incorporation doctrine.

The second amendment was not incorporated against the states until McDonald vs Chicago in 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #135)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 10:10 AM

139. The inaugural battle of the American Revolutionary War was started when the colonials

refused to surrender their weapons caches at Lexington and Concord.

Through Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion the government never tried to legislatively disarm the poeple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:24 PM

79. There is no criminal accusation involved,all it takes is a judgement by fiat to strip one of their

rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #79)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:31 PM

81. All it takes to lock somebody up for life is a judgment.

The fact that a judgment is required is the protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #81)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:52 PM

82. Bullshit,it would take a jury or due process through the court system with an advocate for

the accused involved.

You just displayed a colossal ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 06:07 PM

86. Due process doesn't order somebody to be locked up.

Verdicts and judgments do. Due process occurs along the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #86)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 07:22 PM

92. The first point you cited includes neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #81)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:58 PM

84. Then we shouldn't need any gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:16 PM

17. At the time, one had a right to buy a gun without a background check.

"the Second only protects a right that existed at the time of passage"

By your own logic requiring background checks is a violation.

Furthermore, at that time, you couldn't just call someone crazy then let them go, you actually had to treat them like they were crazy and lock them up.

So the right to possess guns short of being locked up was also in play at that time, which by your logic is a violation now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:19 PM

19. You could buy a gun without a background check

I don't know of that being part of the right though. I don't think you understand what my logic is and isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:23 PM

20. Without governmental interference short of being locked up, get your guns back when released.

Thats the right, as it existed at the time of passage.

You said "the Second only protects a right that existed at the time of passage".

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Demanding a background check of a peaceable free citizen is certainly encroaching on their freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 09:14 PM

10. "Doesn't look like mass gun confiscation to me"

Well, Imagine that. I'm shocked.
good thing it doesn't matter what you see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 09:19 PM

12. Neither one of us is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 09:21 PM

13. only one of us is interested in and has The Constitution to support his beliefs

the other thinks his opinions should be able to override it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:07 PM

15. If one of the proposals runs afoul of the Constitution I won't like it.

I don't think my opinions override the Constitution. I deeply respect it. You are throwing all kinds of garbage at me because I didn't fall for your fake news from Breitbart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:18 PM

18. "shall not be infringed"

It's a blanket statement and was meant as such.
you don't get to "interpret"... regardless of how asshurt you get about Brietbart's domain name

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:23 PM

21. Infringed refers to the right that existed at the time.

Notice that the Amendment says THE right. So yes, the right that existed at the time can't be infringed. Which one of these violates it? How?

Its not the domain name that bothers me about Breitbart. Its that like in this instance they spread anger and hatred with lies. Nothing about that makes my ass hurt though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:34 PM

24. "shall not be infringed".

One more time, you don't get to "interpret".
It amazes me how you people fail to understand the context. The Constitution provides you zero rights.
We are "endowed by our creator".
Read the damned document instead of parroting far-left fascist bullshit. Then try reading the instruction manual... The Federalists. It's all there in black and white. You don't get to add and subtract from The Constitution as you see fit. That's how fascists and tyrannical people behave. Respect it, or abandon it and go elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:03 PM

29. God isn't enforcing your Second Amendment rights

The law is.

I can interpret for posts on a message board. I'm allowed to. What's more, the courts interpret. If the courts make a decision I usually respect it. You on the other hand aren't empowered to decide what is correct and order anybody who disagrees with you to leave. What ever gave you the idea that you could?

I had two semesters of Constitutional Law in college. So I have read it. What Federalist manual are you talking about? Do you mean the right wing kook Federalists?

There is a real problem when a Trump supporter calls somebody tyrannical.

Far left bullshit is that the Second isn't an individual right at all. I'm not saying that so you are way off by saying I parrot the far left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:06 PM

31. you are wrong. I suggest you go back and start from scratch, your brainwashing is

far too deep rooted.
Government does not grant us rights, we are born with them.
The Constitution is nothing but the handcuffs for government.
Try reading it again. and this time, try to pay attention to what it says, not what you've been brainwashed into believing at the DUmp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:27 PM

33. I believe with you that rights are put there by nature.

But its up to us to recognize them. If we are born with rights why don't people in North Korea have as many as we do? They certainly deserve rights but they aren't protected.

The Constitution both creates and limits government. If you don't know that you don't know the first thing about it. Its a pact between the people and their government.

I haven't been brainwashed by the dump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:43 PM

38. why don't people in North Korea have as many as we do? They certainly deserve rights but they aren't

Yes they do, but they have a totalitarian socialist dictatorship that does not respect individual rights. Kind of like the folks at Think Progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:53 PM

40. I think the people at Think Progress are way out there.

But I don't believe they are comparable to North Korean dictators.

So you see that more is involved in granting rights than just the work of God?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:59 PM

42. exists in nature

look up natural rights theory. I think the folks at Think Progress can go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 03:40 AM

122. Judicial activism violates that pact between the people and their government trevor.

Judicial activism illegitimately changes the conditions upon which the pact you speak of is based.

But you hadn't considered that, had you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 02:26 AM

46. No, son, you are wrong.

The basis of our Constitution is Natural Law. Our rights are inalienable and guaranteed by our Creator. It doesn't matter if you call that God or the Flying Fucking Spaghetti Monster. What it means is that these rights are part of our humanity. Human beings have the right to self-defense. Period. The Constitution simply states that the government can NOT ever violate our inalienable, God created, natural rights as human beings. They can not take away our guns or other means of self-defense. They can not take away our privacy. They can not take away our freedom of speech, self-expression, or religious expression.

Yes, you are free to 'interpret' all you want. And we are free to call you an incorrect idiot when you do so. There is nothing in the Constitution that is 'at that time'. When we say it is a living document, it is meant that what was protected then is protected now and always protected in the future. You fucking leftists believe you can interpret, change, 'evolve' it to suit your needs in the here and now. Fuck that bullshit. You can not.

And thank God and Trump, SCOTUS is 5/4 conservative/originalist so this type of tyrannical bullshit won't pass.

No, the real problem is not that we call out your tyranny. It is that you are all petty little tyrants when given the chance. The entire purpose of the Founding Father's Constitution was to protect the people from tyrants who believe that they can take away natural rights by interpretation and fiat. They can not. You can not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:08 PM

53. The founders believed in inalienable rights

Natural Law is a philosophy but legally it is dangerous. It isn't codified so it can be used as a justification for anything

Rights are not absolute and under some situations the government can take them away. We have courts to decide when.

I don't believe the Constitution evolves to suit my needs. I believe the 8th Amendment evolves because it bans "unusual" punishment. What is usual evolves so the Amendment has to. I can't think of any other part that evolves.

I'm not a tyrant. I have no power so I couldn't be a tyrant if I wanted to be and I don't want to be.

Interpretations of the Constitution by liberals are as sincerely formed as those of conservatives. Nobody subscribes to changing it just to suit ones needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:17 PM

54. Natural Law is the basis for our entire form of government

including our laws. It most certainly is codified. Y'all just refuse to study it or follow it. Natural Law is NOT dangerous. Not following it is.

No by its very definition, it can not be used as a justification for anything. That is the moral relativism, you liberals adhere to.

You support tyrants and you peddle tyrannical opinions on these boards daily. That makes you a petty little tyrant.

Most of the time, no they are not, because they are not originalist based. They are post modern, relativistic, situational, and progressive. Those philosophical takes fly in the face of the Constitution itself and the intent of the Founding Father's when draft it as the governing document of this Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:57 PM

56. One could say natural law gives parents the right to decide how to discipline their children.

But we have a concept of child abuse. Where in Natural law is that codified? Historically, the courts shot down many regulations based on their own interpretations of Natural Law. The concept was abused. It was wisely discontinued. Where is this Natural Law code written? The abuse of Natural Law to decide cases was contrary to originalism.

I don't support tyrants or tyrannical opinions. That's you once again placing labels on things you don't agree with.

You buy into right wing propaganda about liberal interpretations of the law. When challenged to come up with examples those propagandists fall short. Moral relativism is another right wing propaganda phrase. What exactly is it? Is premeditated murder worse than an act in the heat of passion or is that relativism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:30 PM

62. Natural Law is a system.

It uses fundamental principles and when applied to everyday situations, it is presumed that one can reason his or her way to know what is the morally right thing to do. From that foundation of moral certainty then justice (law) can easily be deduced.



That is not right wing propaganda. That is the reality of liberal thought today. Moral jurisprudence has been reduced to either Freudian, Darwinian, or Marxist, fundamentals - a struggle between humanity and animal, instinct and reason, the powerful and the powerless. Natural Law recognizes no such divisions and clearly states that when such an apparent struggle exists, we know that we are acting immorally and therefore with regards to society, unjustly (illegally).

The Founding Fathers were Natural Law adherents, not modern moral relativist. They would never say that the state (or king) gives rights. Clarence Thomas states it correctly in his article in Harvard Journal of Law entitled "The Higher Law Background of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not create or give human rights to anyone, rather it protects and defends that which is inherently present in human nature from conception.

Here is the perfect example of moral relativism. You believe that Natural Law allowed for child abuse, which it clearly does not nor never did. Yet, y'all support abortion which is clearly against Natural Law, as it deprives a human being of life, liberty, and the potential pursuit of happiness.

There is no Constitutional right to murder a child. There is a Constitutional right to defend oneself from unsolicited violence. There is no Constitutional right to immigration. There is a Constitutional right to protect our borders. And on and on and on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:30 PM

68. I don't believe Natural Law permits child abuse.

I just used parental rights as an example of where somebody could argue that Natural Law makes their side right and there is no way to decide either way because Natural Law isn't codified. You say Natural Law does not permit abortion. You also say everything here is based on Natural Law. Which is it, because abortion is still legal here?

There is a constitutional right to privacy, at least courts have said there is. Critics say that this is an example of Natural Law being used by the courts. You say Natural Law doesn't permit abortion. But that decision is protected by the right to privacy. Natural Law sure is confusing.

I like your ideals but like idealism in other situations on doesn't always translate for practical purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #68)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 11:20 PM

101. You simply do not understand Natural Law

and are pretending to do so with a barage of verbiage. You basically attempted a mini-Gish-Gallop.

Read Aristotle, the Stoics, Augustine, Aquinas, the Scholastics, Pope Leo XIII, Pope JP II, Michael Novak, Scalia, and Thomas and maybe you will be able to discuss this with me intelligently. Right now, you are just being a fool.

Natural Law is a system such that laws derived from it are logically consistent and easily codified. There is no way to argue that a parent abusing a child can be justified by Natural Law. To not do harm in the extreme is at the heart of the system.

One can not justify murder with the Right to Privacy. That is why the rulings on abortion are political activism and not justified Constitutional jurisprudence. And if your side didn't know that this was true, they would not use the fear of SCOTUS over-turning Roe v. Wade as the GOTV priority that it is. You don't get to murder your wife in the privacy of your own bedroom and claim a right to privacy to justify it.

These are not my ideas. This is the foundational moral/legal philosophy of Christendom and the West from the ancient Greeks forward. They have been 'translated' into practical purposes for millennia. What the fuck to you think our Constitution is? It is the practical application of Natural Law into governance. It has worked successfully for over 200 years as long as it is followed. When activist judges like the Warren court go against it, great harm follows. That'a reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #101)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 12:16 AM

104. I haven't read as much as you about Natural Law.

I'm not planning to either. Its of historical interest but little other practical value.

"Natural law, a concept of inherent rights that animated the Revolution, still has respected adherents who argue for a moral basis for American law. But the concept is vague and subjective. It has been used to both defend and oppose slavery, sex discrimination, and other evils now banned by positively enacted constitutional amendments and statutes"

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/12/opinion/natural-law-then-and-now.html

If I read as much as you about it I expect I would find many different takes on what it means. You said its easily codified. Where then is the code?

Historically, before Roosevelt, courts used Natural Law as an excuse to overturn laws that protected workers, among other laws. Since then, the concept is no longer regularly applied. If you read my link Clarence Thomas had to deny he was into it.

You talk about Natural Law and Abortion but Roe v Wade was partially based on a right to privacy found in Griswold v. Connecticut. That ruling has been blamed on Natural Law. Here' a quote from the dissent:

"If these formulas based on “natural justice,” or others which mean the same thing, are to prevail, they require judges to determine what is or is not constitutional on the basis of their own appraisal of what laws are unwise or unnecessary."

That's exactly what happens when you have law that's not based on a written code. Its a situation conservatives often preach against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #104)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:15 AM

111. Fuck the NYT opinion pieces you constantly peddle here.

You are not capable of a discussion on any topics because you confuse opinion for fact.

You are right. You don't know dick about Natural Law, which means you don't know dick about the Constitution.

Any 'interpretation' you make is just an emotional modern leftist opinion pulled out of your ass.

Natural Law gave us the fucking written code!

The Constitution IS the fucking codified legal expression of Natural Law. It is not an historical artifact as you fucking neo-Marxist want it to be.

Go away. I am done trying to discuss this with an ignorant child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #111)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:53 AM

117. He truly does not realize just how out of his depth he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #111)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 12:35 AM

126. You quit because you lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #126)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:05 AM

129. No, I didn't.

I stepped away because arguing with an idiot is fruitless and boring. I don't throw pearls before swine.

You blather on and on and on. I will let others finish smacking your ass like you rightly deserve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #129)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 11:20 PM

136. You instantly block out any information I give you

Yet you expect me to immediately believe everything you say. Of course that doesn't work for for you, and when it doesn't you get mad and insult and flee. Tantrums!

Nobody is smacking my ass or going to. You switch yourself onto full kitty and then try to pretend you are some sort of tough guy "kicking ass." Its pretty pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #136)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 02:48 AM

137. You don't give information kid.

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2019, 03:50 AM - Edit history (2)

You provide opinions that are heavy on speculation and extremely low on facts.

I provide facts and even recommend sources which you always ignore. Read a few essays by John Finnis on Natural Law and Natural Rights, and then I will believe you have some intellectual background to discuss Natural Law with me with regards to 2nd Amendment gun rights. As it stands, you post opinion pieces from NYT's and WaPo, you quote Blackstone out of context, and you refuse to acknowledge that you are having a strawman argument with Nostrings.

If you are going to call me a pussy, have the fucking balls to actually do it. You have had your ass kicked in this thread. You are just too damned stupid to realize it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #137)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 11:06 PM

143. The problem is

that you are a fan of Natural Law, so you have studied it, so you want to make this a discussion about what you have studied. You want to be the expert, teacher. But that is not consecutive to the way this discussion came up. What I've been talking about is.

I browsed some stuff on the web tonight and my opinions on Natural Law are shared by experts. One of them is Judge Bork. He's no liberal.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/03/natural-law-and-the-constitution

From what else I looked at it appears I've been fine on facts and haven't been speculating. The New York Times factoid about Natural Law being used to both support and oppose slavery appears in many places. The Times was right and you once again labeled what was said and dismissed it rather than considering it. You were wrong, just like you are about me getting my ass kicked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #143)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 01:25 AM

146. The problem is that you are as usual in way over your head.

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2019, 05:22 AM - Edit history (1)

To understand the Constitution, you have to understand the Founding Fathers. To understand them, you must understand their 'world-view' and philosophy that underlies the creation of our Constitution. That means you must understand Natural Law. Period. Any other 'interpretations' of the Constitution are not factual nor historically accurate. They fail to grasp the underlying objective truth.

Like most liberals, you believe that if you promote a Conservative saying what you believe that it somehow makes it 'correct'. It does not. Bork is indeed a conservative when it comes to jurisprudence, but he is not an Originalist. That is why his article you link to here is inaccurate from the first paragraph because he makes the mistake of believing that Thomas, as a Natural Law expert and Originalist, would 'change' the Constitution and rule in favor of conservatism. Thomas recognizes correctly that our Constitution is based on Natural Law and that all of our rights, privileges, and laws stem from this. One does not need to 'change' the Constitution because the Constitution is already based on Natural Law.

Therefore your little NYT 'factoid' was also incorrect because it makes the exact same mistake. You are caught up in a partisan conservative/liberal debate on the Constitution, rights, and laws. My politics may be 'conservative' but my approach to the Constitution, rights, and laws is firmly grounded in the reality of Natural Law at the heart of the matter.

So yes, kid, I remain 'right'. You are still very wrong, and far too ignorant to understand this. Stop reading the NYT's and 30 year old articles by conservatives on Natural Law. If you want to truly understand the Constitution and correct your errors in thinking, you need to actually study Natural Law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 03:48 PM

67. Show me where the Constitution presumes a penumbra?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:02 PM

52. Glad you agree with the courts.

Then you will be agreeing with the Supreme Court when they rule 5-4 that assault weapon bans (bans on semi-autos) are unconditional as they ban weapons commonly used and owned.

Multiple cases of exactly that are getting ready to hit the court. Now that Trump has replaced Kennedy (who didn’t want to touch this question) with a guy who absolutely wants to, the court will be taking it up and destroying the last vestige of hope gun control had. Look for an assault weapon case to be taken on the docket in the new session at the end of this year with the decision in the summer of 2020.

Eric Swalwell can take his “sell your guns or we nuke you” shit and stick it up his ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hades (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:07 PM

57. Don't count your pro gun USSC votes just yet

I don't trust Roberts on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hades (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:14 PM

58. If the courts strike down an assault weapons ban I'll respect that.

There was an assault weapons ban before though. Why wasn't that struck down?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 02:19 PM

65. Because the GOP are smart enough...

...not to take a gun case to the court unless they know they have the votes. They did for Heller and McDonald. Kennedy was not on board for assault weapons, so they did not chance it. Now they have the votes.

So why have they not been stuck down? Because one would have to be stupid to challenge them up to the SCOTUS when not having the votes. Now they have the votes.

Not-to-mention at least one of these cases also deals with demanding turn in without JUST compensation; which will also likely be addressed. If not now, it will be with the bump stock ban. You can’t ban property purchased legally and then say “fuck and your money turn it in”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:37 PM

25. Do you understand, trevor, that all rights belong to the people by default?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:05 PM

30. Yes.

It says in the Tenth Amendment that all rights not taken stay with the states and the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:37 AM

48. The tenth amendment is beside the point.

All rights belong to the people.

Only people have rights.

Governments have powers.

All things are by default, legal, until they're made illegal via due process.

The government can only regulate or restrict what rights we have by default, it can not provide them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:19 PM

59. I agree with most of that.

I can also go with the idea that government doesn't provide those rights but they are the ones who protect them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:23 PM

61. Government isn't protecting rights when it ignores restrictions meant to protect rights.

Amendments in the bill of rights are meant specifically to disempower government, to make forbidden certain exercises of power by government.

Infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is one of those actions, those exercises of power, which was explicitly intended to be forbidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:33 PM

69. That right is protected

as far as the Amendment is interpreted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:41 PM

70. An interpretation which does not protect man portable implements of war is inaccurate.

If you're somehow under the impression that only 'sporting weapons' were intended by the framers to be protected...

Or that they intended for the government which they intended to restrict with the amendment to be able to interpret itself out of said restrictions...

Then you are genuinely beneath discussing this with and unreachable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:53 PM

72. I don't think the 2nd was only for sporting weapons.

I do think that the founders left it up to the courts to interpret the law.

I'm plenty reachable. You need facts and logic to reach me. If you give up its because you don't have them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:04 PM

74. What catagories do you think there were at the time amendment 2 was made law?

"I do think that the founders left it up to the courts to interpret the law. "

I think the framers meant no when they said no.

I think they gave a system to change what they left us, and that "interpretation" is counter to that system.

And I'm absolutely 100 percent completely correct about that, too.


"You need facts and logic to reach me."

Facts and logic do not appear in your calculus, for those of us able to see it.


I gave you facts above. Lets see if they reach you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:10 PM

76. What you are able to see is your own opinion

Which you have no healthy doubts about.

The courts do not agree with you. That alone should give you at least 1% uncertainty.

You gave me no facts. Only your opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 05:17 PM

78. Oh? Lets start here wiseguy.

I think they gave a system to change what they left us, and that "interpretation" is counter to that system.

And I'm absolutely 100 percent completely correct about that, too.

FACT.


"The courts do not agree with you. That alone should give you at least 1% uncertainty. "

The courts can and have been as wrong and full of error, and as politically biased, as you have.



"You gave me no facts."

See above and up your game.


Besides, you've already made it perfectly crystal clear how you personally determine constitutionality:

https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1015&pid=1907112


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #78)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 06:03 PM

85. Courts aren't perfect

but they are under the control of very bright people who have studied these things far more than you or I. The 100% you give yourself is a little conceited, don't you think? Being that as far as I know you have no training at all with these matters. Here's something on the 100% you gave yourself on judicial interpretation:

"While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

If you tried to pass your opinions off in a law school you would get a 0%, not 100%.

Also, you should understand this from the link:

"Justice Scalia on the Second Amendment: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them…”—District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)"

Amendments are statement of principle. They don't include all the details. Its up to courts to decide what is meant by them.

Its not just me who looks at how upholding a right can affect future matters. The courts have categories of governmental interests that can be determined when deciding if a right outweighs needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 06:13 PM

87. I don't expect them to be perfect, I expect them to respect limits placed on government.

"The 100% you give yourself is a little conceited, don't you think?"

Not at all, since it is factually true and verifiable.

Unlike you, I can read and understand and I do not need others to do or guide my thinking for me.



"If you tried to pass your opinions off in a law school you would get a 0%, not 100%."

I'd do a whole hell of a lot better than you, kiddo.


" "Justice Scalia on the Second Amendment: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them…”—District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)"


The scope of the right to keep and bear at the time when the people adopted it, was to buy and possess arms up to and including fully armed warships free of governmental interference.

Square that.


"Its not just me who looks at how upholding a right can affect future matters."

Thats nice, but courts job when it comes to the constitution, particularly the supreme court, is not to judge with an outcome in mind, it is to decide WITHOUT an eye to outcome whether the constitution has been violated.

Outcome oriented decisions are the text book definition of judicial activism.

Thats something they'd tell you in law school, trevor, not that you'd know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #87)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 07:04 PM

90. What verifiable?

I give you links that prove you wrong. You gain nothing. You wouldn't do well in any school at all if you make up your mind about things without listening to anybody else. We all can learn from others, except those who are stupid enough to pass up all those benefits.

I addressed your unlimited right at the time of passage fallacy in another post.

Your ideas of absolute rights are unreasonable. Here's a legal concept:

"Compelling-State-Interest-Test Law and Legal Definition
Compelling-state-interest-test refers to a method of determining the constitutional validity of a law. Under this test, the government’s interest is balanced against the individual’s constitutional right to be free of law. However, a law will be upheld only if the government’s interest is strong enough.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/compelling-state-interest-test/

Does free speech include death threats? It would under your system.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #90)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 07:28 PM

93. That the framers gave us a way to change our system.

That the framers gave us a system to change what they left us, and that "interpretation" is countrary to that system and to the intent behind it.

THAT is verifiable.

"I give you links that prove you wrong. You gain nothing. You wouldn't do well in any school at all if you make up your mind about things without listening to anybody else. We all can learn from others, except those who are stupid enough to pass up all those benefits."

This is an assumption, made by you, similar to many such assumptions made by people like you, who assume others like me have never heard those arguments before. Been there, done that. You're ten years behind me trevor, if not twenty or thirty.

"Compelling state interest" almost certainly means strict scrutiny, do you know what that means, trevor?

It means a 3 pronged test:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest:


ALL gun control seems to fail on prong number 3, as controlling problem individuals is less restrictive in the eyes of the second amendment than blanket gun laws which restrict everyone.


Are you sure you wanted to go there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 08:17 PM

97. I'm surprised you know about strict scrutiny.

Can you think of a less restrictive way to say, ban bump stocks, other than banning them?

The link I gave you shows you the founders assumed interpretation. They didn't expect amendments to solve everything, if that's what you mean by system to change. They made amendments hard to pass. Your understanding of that doesn't match understand strict scrutiny. Did you google?

I'll go anywhere you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #97)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 08:42 PM

99. Dunning-kruger is like that.

"I'm surprised you know about strict scrutiny."

Dunning-kruger is like that.


"Can you think of a less restrictive way to say, ban bump stocks, other than banning them?"

Banning bumpstocks isn't a legitimate compelling governmental interest, and the government has made no legitimate arguments that it is, so feel free to put forth your own argument how and why they are, using your own words - IF you can.


"The link I gave you shows you the founders assumed interpretation."

No. It ASSERTS it, and you buy it. Theres a difference.

The founders, had they assumed interpretation in the context of the way *I* mean, would not have bothered to add an amendment process, because things would have been expected to be reinterpreted with the times, as you seem to think it should be.

They, however, DID add an amendment process. This is proof positive, that any interpretation outside of the common understanding, in new and interesting directions, was intended to be amendment area, not interpretation area. The framers intended, in terms of interpretation, a very NARROW field of variance.

"They didn't expect amendments to solve everything, if that's what you mean by system to change."

Ahh but they DID expect that to reduce the principles they intended to protect BY amendment, would take another amendment.

You don't actually believe they passed the amendments into law thinking 'those are all subordinate to statue law', do you?


" They made amendments hard to pass."

They wanted change to be HARD not easy.


"Your understanding of that doesn't match understand strict scrutiny. Did you google? "

What does that even mean? Try again, this time in some understandable dialect of english.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 09:20 PM

100. As far as I know

your views on judicial review are unheard of. This goes back to Marbury v Madison. And most don't know it but that had precedents. What I gave you is from the Supreme Court itself. To your closed mind its an assertion. To a reasonable person its fact.

I had to look up dunning-kruger so I don't know everything. Since most of your past opinions have been so poorly informed one doesn't have to consider themselves superior to be surprised you knew about strict scrutiny. An amendment process if for changing the Constitution. Interpreting isn't. See how little you know?

The compelling government interest in banning bump stocks would be to prevent further mass murders, although since no ban has occurred no case is available to make that argument in. You quote strict scrutiny but its a tool for Constitutional interpretation, which you don't believe in.

Sorry, I'll complete the sentence. Your understanding of that doesn't match your understanding of strict scrutiny. Did you google? You should have been able to get what I meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #100)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 12:10 AM

103. We weren't discussing judicial review per se.

We were discussing what was, on the day the second amendment was passed into law, at which time there had been no judicial review.



"Since most of your past opinions have been so poorly informed..."

My boy, you aren't capable of making that judgement accurately. You can't even remember what we're discussing with much of anything resembling accuracy for cripes sake.



"An amendment process if for changing the Constitution. Interpreting isn't. See how little you know?"

I assume you meant "is for". Trevor, you've already admitted that your views are not based solely on the constitution, but on outcomes:

"Its not just me who looks at how upholding a right can affect future matters."

You've lost the argument already.




"You quote strict scrutiny but its a tool for Constitutional interpretation, which you don't believe in."

No, its a tool which I do not believe is applicable.

Lets go over the three prongs of strict scrutiny again:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest:



Claiming a compelling interest is achieved, hypothetoically, but there are two prongs left to fulfill.

Banning them from everyone hardly seems narrowly tailored, but lets assume for sake of discussion that it meets that requirement.

It must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

First, it wont achieve that interest.

Second, are you of the opinion that banning bumpstocks is the least restrictive means or attempting to prevent mass murders? There are ways or means which are not restrictive at all, which could be substituted.

All of the above are reasons why such a ban is nonsensical and/or clearly unconstitutional.


"Did you google? You should have been able to get what I meant.:"

It isn't on me to run and try to catch what you over or underthrow.

Its on you to throw like an educated person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #103)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 12:40 AM

107. You said courts have no business interpreting amendments

That's judicial review. There was judicial review when the amendment passed. It told you so in the link I gave you. This is but one example of your ignorance of the law. You are poorly informed.

I haven't lost any arguments. Probably through google you discovered strict scrutiny. That involves determining public interest. That means weighing potential results. Its not coming from me at all. It a long held legal concept. Its applied when the court decides it should be, not when you feel its applicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #107)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 12:49 AM

108. No, I think you read that into something I said.

Maybe it was justice jackson who you have a problem with:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One s right to life liberty and property to free speech a free press freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

― Robert H. Jackson

Perhaps its this part you're really having a problem with: "beyond the reach of majorities and officials".


"You are poorly informed. "

If I'm poorly informed, you're a well informed amoeba.



"Probably through google you discovered strict scrutiny."

I was arguing about strict scrutiny decades ago, while you were likely still chasing junior high school girls on your bicycle.



"That involves determining public interest."

No. It involves governmental interest. They aren't the same thing. "Public interest" is the "majorities" justice jackson was speaking of in the quote at the top of this post.



"That means weighing potential results."

That does NOT mean ruling with an end result in mind. Its NOT the supreme courts job to enact public policy. Its their job to protect the public FROM government, and to rule ONLY on whether the constitution is violated or not, not whether it should be or not or why.

Like I said: You already lost the argument, you signed your name on the dotted line of judicial activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #108)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:15 AM

112. Here's what you said

""I do think that the founders left it up to the courts to interpret the law. "

I think the framers meant no when they said no.

I think they gave a system to change what they left us, and that "interpretation" is counter to that system.

And I'm absolutely 100 percent completely correct about that, too.

I can see why you would want to pretend you didn't say a stupid thing like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #112)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:36 AM

115. I did say that, but it doesn't mean what you claim it does.

And it is absolutely correct, too.

When you say 'interpret' you mean in ways that go way beyond narrow original interpretation, by degrees that solidly enter amendment territory.

That isn't what the framers intended, or they would not have included an amendment process, nor would they have deliberately made one and made it difficult.

The framers made our system of government and the protections we're afforded debilerately hard to change for a reason trevor.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #115)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 12:32 AM

125. Where are all these interpretations that go way beyond what is there? And go into Amendment

territory? Interpretation doesn't change the law. It illuminates it. It applies law to novel situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #125)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 01:02 AM

128. See the most abused part of the constitution, for starters, the interstate commerce clause.

interpretation has "illuminated" it to mean anything under the sun, rather than just genuine interstate commerce as the framers intended.

There are entire books about that clause, alone. You should try reading some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #128)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 01:08 AM

131. I don't have time for whole books but I do have some time off this week.

I'll try to read up on the Commerce Clause this week here on the net. I know from school that courts took an incredibly expansive view of it. They went further than I think common sense would require. But I didn't study their reasoning or the reasoning of their critics. But I shall look into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #131)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 01:27 AM

132. Start with Wickard vs Filburn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #132)

Wed Jan 9, 2019, 10:41 PM

134. I think that was the case I heard of before

where a farmer growing wheat only for his own consumption was ruled to be engaging in interstate commerce. My reaction at the time was that I couldn't imagine the founders included the word interstate for any reason but to keep the fed from getting involved in such small matters. My first impression was that the court overreached.

I read the case on findlaw and now I'm not so sure. I think its very significant that all the way back to Justice Marshall the court held it wasn't up to the judicial branch to limit the use of the clause. I'll have to read more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #108)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:18 AM

113. He is a neo-Marxist liberal.

Of course, he has signed his name on the dotted line of judicial activism.

He refuses to learn the philosophical basis for the Constitution, and therefore, he can not understand it.

If you are blessed, he will regale you with a NYT's opinion piece in response!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #113)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:46 AM

116. He can not argue his own arguments without appealing to authority or cite, thats for sure.

And yep, he signed his name to judicial activism, and tried to justify it too.

He doesn't realize when he should be feeling really stupid, either, you have to actually tell him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #116)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:58 AM

118. If only it was someone with some knowledge and authority he appealed to.

But no, he draws on half-wit opinion pieces from the thoroughly discredited New York Times.

He obviously won't listen or learn. I am done attempting to discuss this topic with him. You have far more patience than I do these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #118)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 02:06 AM

119. Even when he draws on blackstone or the like, its to refute an argument you aren't even making.

Its like his reading comprehension...needs work. A lot of work.

I get the impression of a low to mid 20s type youngster with him.


The sort that hasn't reached a point of understanding the counterintuitivities of life or society or reality, quite yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #119)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 03:26 AM

120. Likely a sophomore or junior in college

is my assessment. He knows just enough to think he is doing it right, but not enough to actually realize when he is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #120)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 03:31 AM

121. Right on the money.

"He knows just enough to think he is doing it right"

Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:31 PM

22. Bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:33 PM

23. You can not deeply respect it and support a ban on semi auto weapons which hold ten or more rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:29 PM

34. The Supreme Court has ruled weapon limitations

Constitutional in the past. If I believed they were wrong I'd be against weapons limitations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:30 PM

36. for example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:18 AM

43. I tried to take a quick look at what can be banned

I don't know for sure. I know machine guns and shotguns under 18 inches were held as legal to ban. But I saw there is common use language in Heller. So if the proposed assault weapon ban runs afoul of Heller then I don't think it should pass and if it does it ought to be overturned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:38 AM

45. Actually,

the NFA strictly regulated, not ban. Miller held that SBS could be banned but not machine guns because the latter is a military weapon. I don't know if Heller supersedes Miller or not when it comes to machine guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 04:42 AM

49. If you're FOR weapon limitations then you don't respect the second amendment much.

The second amendment was put into place, specifically, to keep the hand of government away from interference with the possession and ownership of military suitable weapons, ranging from individual possessed firearms all the way up to the privately owned fully armed warship - that range of implements were common at the time of signing.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:22 PM

60. The courts have upheld limits on weapons.

Do you think people should be allowed to have anti-aircraft missiles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:34 PM

63. Incorrectly, in my view.

"Do you think people should be allowed to have anti-aircraft missiles?"

Observe, class. Here trevor admits how he views constitutionality by asking "should people should be allowed...", with an end result in mind.

Heres an old quote, trevor: 'If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.' You ask the wrong questions, and I'm not yet sure if its because you don't know any better, or if its deliberate.

What *you* or *I* 'think people 'should or should not have' is irrelevant to the question of constitutionality.

What matters, the ONLY question that matters is: Is government exercising power they were forbidden from exercising?

And in the case of firearms and man portable weapons of war, yes, government most certainly IS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 10, 2019, 11:57 AM

140. Here is the problem....

...gun control takes that to mean that if one restriction is ok, then all restrictions they can think up are ok.

You want a machine gun? You can’t have a nuke.

You want a semi-auto? You can’t have a nuke.

You want a bolt-action? You can’t have a nuke.

You want a revolver? You can’t have a nuke.

You want a butcher knife? You can’t have a nuke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:00 PM

28. they do,

and I have yet found a lefty that takes the Constitution that seriously. It does violate the fifth amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:16 PM

32. The left is the only side that takes the Constitution seriously.

Do you remember the Warren Court? How the conservatives hated that? I remember GW Bush accusing Micheal Dukakis of being a "card carrying member of the ACLU."

Are you talking about the protective orders violating due process? They are only temporary and "the proposal specifies that any removal order would have to be brought by law enforcement and approved by a judge or magistrate." So there probably isn't as much due process as you would like to see but there is some, as much as there is with other protective orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:30 PM

35. no I don't remeber the Warren Court

I was a little kid then. The only "conservatives" that didn't like it were Southern Democrats that didn't like Griswald and Brown. I don't know of any real conservatives that opposed it, and I grew up in Wyoming. The only thing I would disagree is that I would put the right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment instead of the due process clause in the 14th. You can thank pot prohibition to liberal interpretations of the commerce clause.

Protective orders do not involve confiscating property. In some states, anyone can bullshit a judge and the target has no idea until the cops show up. Someone who is not suspected of a crime, no evidence of a crime, and confiscated without the accuser having to prove anything. The burden of proof in most states is on the target. Out of the ones carried out, none have resulted in violence, except one in MA where the cops simply open fired on a guy who as answering the door at 530AM. Turns out that he was a victim of a prank by another family member. Which begs the question, how many are reasonable and not pranks or vindictive.

Progressives are not the same as liberals. Conservatives are the true liberals, just like Harding and Coolige push for civil rights after great progressive Wilson held Klan rallys at the WH?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:50 PM

39. Many of the rights we now take for granted came from the Warren Court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court#Due_process_and_rights_of_defendants_(1963%E2%80%9366)

Conservatives hated it. They said the left was soft on crime. They said the left took Jesus out of the schools. They went bonkers over integration.

I think protective orders have been used to take property. I think they have been used to order an abusive spouse to leave his home. How much more property can you get than one's own home?

I'm not a lawyer but as far as I understand it only initial temporary orders are granted without the participation of the person receiving the orders. After a short period, a full hearing with all involved must be held for the order to be continued.

I think the right to privacy comes more from the 4th Amendment than any other.

I doubt many protective orders are applied for as pranks. If somebody applies for one with false information they could wind up in trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:57 PM

41. actually no,

none of the Warren Court decisions have affected me in any way. It only affected a few Southern states. In Wyoming, we never had forced prayer, schools have always been integrated.

I did learn that one reason why the South went Republican was because the racists moved to New England, like MA, and guns and abortion became bigger issues. I do remember white "liberals" in places like MA lose their shit over bussing. Portland is racist as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:21 AM

44. They fought busing tooth and nail in Boston

But I don't think that necessarily means liberals were the ones opposing it.

The South went Republican over race and other matters that liberals staked out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 02:26 AM

47. Actually, no.

The South is less racist today than many parts of the country, especially compared to places like Boston and Portland. Have to remember, the discrimination in the South was State law enforced by people with badges and guns. I used to be amused when Thom Hartman would get flustered when a libertarian would point out that fact.

Racism and bigotry is tribalism, which transcends left/right (although modern conservatives tend to be more individualistic, and racism is collectivist). Democrats are just as racist as they were 100 years ago, just not all of them are white.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/smearing-the-south-with-false-charges-of-racism/

The easy way for a black person to tell a white liberal from a white conservative or libertarian, is that the liberal or progressive will talk down to them.
http://www.philly.com/columnists/yale-study-white-liberals-black-conversation-solomon-jones-20181204.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 01:47 PM

64. Interesting study on the down talking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 11:40 PM

37. the ban on everything that can hold more than ten rounds

violates the "common use" clause in Heller, and the "can be used by a militia or military" clause of Miller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2019, 10:51 PM

26. Just a few things

"temporary risk orders" violate the fifth amendment, and have been abused, resulting in an innocent gun owner's death.

A bill requiring background checks on all gun sales, including private sales at gun shows or online. The measure is sponsored by Del. Kenneth R. Plum (D-Fairfax) and Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth). Online sales do go through background checks, has been federal law for 25 years.

A revival of Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law, which had been in effect for nearly 20 years when it was repealed in 2012. Sponsored by Del. Jeion A. Ward (D-Hampton) and Sen. Mamie E. Locke (D-Hampton), the measure would “prevent people from stockpiling firearms and transporting them for sale in other states,” Northam’s office said. No evidence to support his claim. Black market firearms are less expansive than the gun store. Also, the "time to crime" average is 12 years. Also, such sales violates the Gun Control Act which has been in place for 50 years.

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. defacto ban on all semiautomitic firearms, bolt action rifles with removable box magizines.

I think this is an example of right wing anger and hatred generated by lies from the right wing media. Its a shame how RWs carry all that around. That is because left wingers have no valid arguments and don't even bother to learn the issues and the other point of view. That is because lefty lack critical thinking skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2019, 12:21 PM

55. Completely unacceptable

So long as I am not adjudicated incompetent in a hearing it is nobody's business, particularly government what I own, where I bought it, what it is, or how often I shop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #55)

Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:06 AM

110. This is the correct answer.

Absent a crime or an ajudication, the government does not have any interest compelling or otherwise in firearms at all, beyond manufacturing safety/reliability standards and genuine interstate commerce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 12:29 AM

124. Virginia is a class III state and Allows legal ownership of Machineguns but will ban Semiautos

Typical democrat- his head is so far up his own ass he can check the backs of his teeth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticskekkekistanfrogpeperedpillayalolahwalkawayblexitpelosishutdown