2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[frigidweirdo]

I was agreeing with you and I could have articulated the comment better.

You could have articulated it.

My point was that capital punishment takes away all rights. It's not about whether we agree or not. The US has it, and so someone cannot say that there are rights which do not have limits. All rights have limits.

Whether you agree with capital punishment or not has nothing to do with that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The rich people, obviously. Though these days a middle class individual can afford one.

And that is clearly a problem that you, and dainty, and bunghole have. You know virtually nothing about the subject, but lecture those of us who have studied it for DECADES!

The problem there is that you've made a claim, and instead of backing it up you're going "nah nah ni nah nah, I know more than you do".

Either provide the evidence to your claim, or **** off.

 

[westwall]

The problem there is that you've made a claim, and instead of backing it up you're going "nah nah ni nah nah, I know more than you do".

Either provide the evidence to your claim, or **** off.

No, I gave you chapter and verse. I told you owned the cannons, when they were founded, and the fact that they still exist, though now purely for philanthropic endeavors.

You provided nothing but opinion.

So, yet again, I know far more about the subject, philosophically, historically, and legally, than you ever will.

 

[westwall]

In any case, it seems evident, clear as day, that the second amendment, as written, is an anachronism and thus needs to be updated to reflect modern realities.

Nope. The 2nd Amendment as written is as necessary today, as it was when it was set to paper.

Your opinion is meaningless.

 

[westwall]

No one is going to take away your right to self defense with fire arms. And once again you've abandoned law for political philosophy.

Jefferson also thought the Constitution should be rewritten every generation. Are we bound by that opinion as well?

The question was never whether Jefferson personally favored an armed populace. The question was whether his private correspondence carries the force of law. It does not.

More importantly, your argument proves far too much. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed rebellion against the government, then you are conceding that the right exists for insurrectionary purposes, a proposition the courts have never embraced.

The Constitution created a republican system in which governments are changed through elections, legislation, impeachment, and amendment—not periodic armed uprisings. Whatever Jefferson may have mused about in a letter, the legal authority of the United States comes from the Constitution, not from selected quotations extracted from his personal correspondence.

In short, citing Jefferson's "tree of liberty" letter does not answer the legal question any more than citing Ben Franklin's jokes would answer a question about the Commerce Clause.

The 2nd is not, nor ever was, intended for self defense, though that is a nice secondary benefit.

No, the 2nd was written so that the people would have the means necessary to overthrow a corrupt government.

Period.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I gave you chapter and verse. I told you owned the cannons, when they were founded, and the fact that they still exist, though now purely for philanthropic endeavors.

You provided nothing but opinion.

So, yet again, I know far more about the subject, philosophically, historically, and legally, than you ever will.

Yep, you won't provide the evidence. So what's the point? Your argument is nothing without the evidence.

Yet another pointless Westwall post.

Dick.

 

[Dante]

Says the stupid shit.

See the map? Count the green and orange states until you get to 13.
Every time you do, your amendment fails.

View attachment 1270692

you're not very bright, are ya

 

[Dante]

I'm familiar with Steven's treatise, but thanks.

annoying

it's about all you amount to here

 

[westwall]

Yep, you won't provide the evidence. So what's the point? Your argument is nothing without the evidence.

Yet another pointless Westwall post.

Dick.

The evidence was given, moron. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.

They have a website.

DURRRRRR

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Repurposed" may have been an imprecise choice of words. "Reoriented" would better capture my point.

Matters not.
In terms of jurisprudence, the "orientation" you claim never existed,as proven in post #8 and confirmed in Heller.
Outside jurisprudence, opinions do not matter.

Heller dramatically shifted the focus of Second Amendment analysis away from the prefatory militia clause and toward an individual self-defense right centered in the home.

In terms of jurisprudence, the analysis you claim never existed, as proven in post #8 and confirmed in Heller.
Outside jurisprudence, opinions do not matter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In any case, it seems evident, clear as day, that the second amendment, as written, is an anachronism and thus needs to be updated to reflect modern realities.

Which can be fully accomplished by truncating the text to:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The necessity you claim, of course, does not exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you're not very bright, are ya

If irony were explosive, you would have just blown the moon from her orbit.

 

[Dante]

If irony were explosive, you would have just blown the moon from her orbit.

Get a refund for that sense of humor. Damaged goods.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Get a refund for that sense of humor. Damaged goods.

Whatever you say, zero-content.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The evidence was given, moron. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.

They have a website.

DURRRRRR

Where's the evidence?

Oh, then you admit you didn't provide the evidence because you think posting a website is posting the evidence.

Oh, how embarrassing.

Should I tell you how you do it?

You go to your website, you find the evidence, you copy and paste it and put it in quotation marks. Then you explain how it fits into your argument.

What you don't do it post a website and say "go find it for yourself".

"DURRRRR"

 

[westwall]

Where's the evidence?

Oh, then you admit you didn't provide the evidence because you think posting a website is posting the evidence.

Oh, how embarrassing.

Should I tell you how you do it?

You go to your website, you find the evidence, you copy and paste it and put it in quotation marks. Then you explain how it fits into your argument.

What you don't do it post a website and say "go find it for yourself".

"DURRRRR"

Try reading some history you moron. Their website is a pretty good resource.

But only if you dare to look.

DURRRRRR

 

[Cellblock2429]

Where's the evidence?

Oh, then you admit you didn't provide the evidence because you think posting a website is posting the evidence.

Oh, how embarrassing.

Should I tell you how you do it?

You go to your website, you find the evidence, you copy and paste it and put it in quotation marks. Then you explain how it fits into your argument.

What you don't do it post a website and say "go find it for yourself".

"DURRRRR"

/——/ "go find it for yourself is only slightly less vapid than “go read a book.” Libtards love that one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Try reading some history you moron. Their website is a pretty good resource.

But only if you dare to look.

DURRRRRR

Oh look, even more embarrassment. You can't provide the data you're claiming to have.

This is how debate works. You either provide your argument, or you don't have an argument. Right now you don't have an argument.

I'm not searching through pages and pages of websites to find one piece of evidence that BACKS UP YOUR ARGUMENT.

I'll do that to find what backs up MY ARGUMENT.

Try being an adult instead of the typical MAGA who NEVER, EVER provides the evidence needed to back up their flimsy arguments.

Do you want to try backing up your argument, or just back and forth with me telling you how to debate and you insulting and telling that you've done your job and looking stupid in the process?

 

[frigidweirdo]

/——/ "go find it for yourself is only slightly less vapid than “go read a book.” Libtards love that one.

I'm sure there are people on both sides who are too damn lazy to find their own evidence. It's not about being from the left or the right, it's about not knowing how to make an argument.

I don't see how it's that difficult, but so many people find it hard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, the ownership of arms is the right to keep arms. It's not about bearing arms. Bearing arms is the right to be in the militia.

Where's the evidence?