Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Going by your 'version' of it, no one under the age of 16, or over the age of 45, or female, would be allowed to have a firearm.

See, I knew you would make that error. And it is an error, due to lack of good education on the types of statements and their negations. A class in discrete mathematics would have helped. Or higher level philosophy courses.

 

[Auld Phart]

See, I knew you would make that error. And it is an error, due to lack of good education on the types of statements and their negations. A class in discrete mathematics would have helped. Or higher level philosophy courses.

Mathematics?

Philosophy?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then you agree with me, that the Right was given to the People, NOT the militia.

No, one cannot definitively say that, either. It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, it does not delineate whether it does or does not extend that right to others. And, if you check your history, you will see that, in our nascent nation, our military and the militias helping them went around and confiscated lots and lots of guns. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe. But they had nothing definitively telling them that they could not do it.

And that is why we have a Supreme Court. Things are "constitutional" precisely and only to the extent the SCOTUS says they are. That's the system. That's what we got. If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mathematics?

Philosophy?

Correct. And your cackling demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of either and how they both deal with, among lots of other things, delineation of the types of statements and their negations. Computer Science also touches on this, as statements in computer programming must be very clear, as well as their negations. Else the code fails.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mathematics?

Philosophy?

The following statement is true:

If WillHaftawaite is a 90-year old tranny riding a rainbow unicorn, then the Moon is made of cheese.

Weird, huh? I assume you are not a 90-year old tranny. For the purpose of this exercise, anyway.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which is all most people want.

Clearly not everyone.

It was naïve for the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited’ and ‘absolute’ crowd to think that the Court would rule in a manner that would lay waste to shall issue licensing laws and allow open carry in police stations, schools, and courthouses.

 

[Auld Phart]

No, one cannot definitively say that, either. It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, it does not delineate whether it does or does not extend that right to others. And, if you check your history, you will see that, in our nascent nation, our military and the militias helping them went around and confiscated lots and lots of guns. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe. But they had nothing definitively telling them that they could not do it.

And that is why we have a Supreme Court. Things are "constitutional" precisely and only to the extent the SCOTUS says they are. That's the system. That's what we got. If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.

It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Auld Phart]

The following statement is true:

If WillHaftawaite is a 90-year old tranny riding a rainbow unicorn, then the Moon is made of cheese.

Weird, huh? I assume you are not a 90-year old tranny. For the purpose of this exercise, anyway.

that makes even less sense than your insistence that one need to belong to a militia to bear arms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even Kavanaugh is wrong.

Why should one be required to give any reason why he should be allowed to exercise a right? It's enough that the right is explicitly declared and protected in the Constitution, and that the Constitution forbids this right from being infringed.

Laws that place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights consistent with Constitutional case law is not to ‘infringe.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, following the original intent of the Framers as codified in Article VI.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it doesn't.

Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.

 

[Auld Phart]

Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.

It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias.

It gives the people the right to bear arms, but not for the purpose of participating in a militia.

You act like a kid someone gave a hammer, and a 6' 2x4, and you're trying to build a rocket ship with it.

 

[Abatis]

Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.

What ever was paid for that education was wasted, a least as far as understanding the Constitution goes.

The 2nd Amendment does not grant, give, create or otherwise establish the right to keep and bear arms, thus the right in no manner depends on the words of the Constitution to exist. That is SCOTUS saying that, in boringly consistent fashion, for now going on 145 Years.

So, not only are you profoundly wrong to impress your conditions and qualifications on the right from your biased read of words the right does not depend upon . . . You also predicate those imaginary conditions and qualifications on a structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized Art I, §8 militia).

So, you hit the wrong trifecta, the philosophy, the history and the law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It gives the people the right to bear arms, but not for the purpose of participating in a militia.

Wrong again.

It clearly contextualizes that right as being invented because we needed well-regulated militias.

Here are two things it also does NOT say:

1) Those who may possibly participate in the future have the right to bear arms

2) Those who may participate in a militia in the future, but who are not in one now, do NOT have the right to bear arms

It neither grants or denies the right to bear arms to people not currently in a militia. Which allowed out nascent government to go around and confiscate a LOT of guns. Seems like you keep forgetting that little fact of history.

So it is not clear. For the purposes of instituting rights and forming code of law, we have a bbody we rely on 100% to interpret these unclear statements, using context of British Commonlaw, other existing parts of code of law, other documents from the time, etc. Which gave the SCOTUS plenty of room to mangle what was likely the original intent of the amendment and to take it places it was never meant to go.

But if anyone has a better system, I am all ears.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What ever was paid for that education was wasted, a least as far as understanding the Constitution goes.

A weak and childish attempt at insult, as the discussion is about parsing the meaning of the one sentence, as stated. What it states and does not state.

But now I know that you don't have much of an education in any related subject. So you should probably just pay attention and learn something

 

[Auld Phart]

Wrong again.

It clearly contextualizes that right as being invented because we needed well-regulated militias.

Here are two things it also does NOT say:

1) Those who may possibly participate in the future have the right to bear arms

2) Those who may participate in a militia in the future, but who are not in one now, do NOT have the right to bear arms

It neither grants or denies the right to bear arms to people not currently in a militia. Which allowed out nascent government to go around and confiscate a LOT of guns. Seems like you keep forgetting that little fact of history.

So it is not clear. For the purposes of instituting rights and forming code of law, we have a bbody we rely on 100% to interpret these unclear statements, using context of British Commonlaw, other existing parts of code of law, other documents from the time, etc. Which gave the SCOTUS plenty of room to mangle what was likely the original intent of the amendment and to take it places it was never meant to go.

But if anyone has a better system, I am all ears.

It gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, it does not require militia membership to do so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, it does not require militia membership to do so.

Unfortunately, that isn't totally clear, in the language. Which is why it had to be clarified. I get it. I get your opinion of the feeling of the statement. I got it the first 100 times.

 

[Abatis]

A weak and childish attempt at insult, as the discussion is about parsing the meaning of the one sentence, as stated. What it states and does not state.

Parsing words that the right does not depend upon to invent dependencies is anti-constitutional.

But now I know that you don't have much of an education in any related subject. So you should probably just pay attention and learn something

Well, I know the right to arms isn't given, created granted or established by the 2nd Amendment. OTOH, your interpretation can only make any sense if you ignore the founders, framers and SCOTUS.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Parsing words that the right does not depend upon to invent dependencies is anti-constitutional.

I did not invent any dependencies. I clearly said it is just unclear. PLEASE try to follow.

 

[Abatis]

I did not invent any dependencies. I clearly said it is just unclear. PLEASE try to follow.

ORLY?

if you are asking me to parse the literal meaning via syntax, it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias.

It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia.

It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias.

So, we have established you are a liar too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS

Let’s say Second Amendment absolutists are having a bad day – in that it seems as if shall issue concealed carry permitting laws will remain Constitutional.