the prez's use of executive order on gun control

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Row6

It s their job to make sense of and apply the Constitution, but when it is not clear - and it isn't on this issue, nor were the authors of it - their decisions can and will be 2nd guessed and possibly overturned by courts in the future. I am not claiming an obvious and clear meaning to the 2nd amendment and anyone who speaks English and is honest would agree there is none. Also, anyone who reads the history of militias both in England and here and of the writing of the Bill of Rights would see also the multifold arguments - many of them now archaic - surrounding the issue. The confusing language reflects that debate then and creates the one now.

My goodness, what an equivocation! This is convoluted even by your standards.

Translation: Obama will nominate SC justices that will hopefully replace those on the court responsible for the Heller and McDonald decisions and will ignore precedent and strike both down given the first chance.

Liberal policy that cannot succeed in the legislative arena is often sent to the judicial one. See Roe v Wade.

[wargunfan]

More liberal judicial activists coming to the SCOTUS as soon as Obama can get it done.

[PIMking]

what's awesome is that they totally miss the part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


....

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

That depends upon the value one places on liberty.

Tell it those who not only had no liberty - a condition by our modern definition common to mankind until very recently - but we're persecuted, many to their deaths. Before making sweeping comments about "tyranny" and how "horrible" things are in America today it helps to ask "compared to what".

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

My goodness, what an equivocation! This is convoluted even by your standards.

Translation: Obama will nominate SC justices that will hopefully replace those on the court responsible for the Heller and McDonald decisions and will ignore precedent and strike both down given the first chance.

Liberal policy that cannot succeed in the legislative arena is often sent to the judicial one. See Roe v Wade.

I'm sorry that you're unable to respond to points subtle but not really difficult for educated adults.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by PIMking

what's awesome is that they totally miss the part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


....

I'm sorry, but what is the qualifying first phrase of that sentence which refers to an archaic concept?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

Tell it those who not only had no liberty - a condition by our modern definition common to mankind until very recently - but we're persecuted, many to their deaths. Before making sweeping comments about "tyranny" and how "horrible" things are in America today it helps to ask "compared to what".

There are fates worse than death. Some of them begin with contempt for the institutions of the republic.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

There are fates worse than death. Some of them begin with contempt for the institutions of the republic.

No, I'm sorry but there aren't, especially if your not a single male without progeny. It is however superior in a dramatic sense to say so.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Row6

No, I'm sorry but there aren't, especially if your not a single male without progeny. It is however superior in a dramatic sense to say so.

There are. If only because if nothing is ever worth dying for, nothing was ever worth loving for. It is an entirely latter day fallacy that present tense existence in relative comfort is the archvalue, and not one that has done anyone any good.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Row6

I'm sorry, but what is the qualifying first phrase of that sentence which refers to an archaic concept?

There are no archaic concepts referenced in the 2nd Amendment. What is referenced is a fundamental right of individual gun ownership subject to scrutiny of stature like the rest of the Bill of Rights and incorporated against the states

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

No, I'm sorry but there aren't, especially if your not a single male without progeny. It is however superior in a dramatic sense to say so.

Then you are a slave already.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

I'm sorry, but what is the qualifying first phrase of that sentence which refers to an archaic concept?

There is no qualifying first phrase in the Second Amendment.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

There are. If only because if nothing is ever worth dying for, nothing was ever worth loving for. It is an entirely latter day fallacy that present tense existence in relative comfort is the archvalue, and not one that has done anyone any good.

You meant living, not loving right. It would be more poetic if the latter but makes less sense. Of course if one will advance a worthy cause, including protecting loved ones or the US, death may be considered worthwhile. That doesn't change the fact that if the same number of people could be either put to their deaths or lose their liberty that the former is a worse result. We are not talking of rogue males with no dependents but an entire population.

[Minister_of_Information]

Rogue males have always done most of the fighting and dying anyway.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Then you are a slave already.

Probably too much to ask for proof of your absurd statement, but then again I'm not sure I'm interested.

[Minister_of_Information]

I can't honestly say that it will right, prudent, successful, or necessarily even worth it, but I am certain that if there is a significant Federal attempt to confiscate private arms, there will be war.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I can't honestly say that it will right, prudent, successful, or necessarily even worth it, but I am certain that if there is a significant Federal attempt to confiscate private arms, there will be war.

I don't think either event is likely though the government already restricts ownership of private arms and apparently without serious protest except from the small number of the most radical
.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Row6

I'm sorry, but what is the qualifying first phrase of that sentence which refers to an archaic concept?

no, but the first sentence isn't the same as the second and doesn't qualify the same meaning as the first.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

Probably too much to ask for proof of your absurd statement, but then again I'm not sure I'm interested.

If there is nothing for which you are willing to die, then you are a slave to fear.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

Tell it those who not only had no liberty - a condition by our modern definition common to mankind until very recently - but we're persecuted, many to their deaths. Before making sweeping comments about "tyranny" and how "horrible" things are in America today it helps to ask "compared to what".

So . . . we must understand and define our liberties in relation to what other people have, think and do.

OK.