So much anger, perhaps you should consider getting rid of your guns for you and your family's own safety.
As to your point, such as it is, I simply disagree. I don't read the Second Amendment the same way that you do and my views have been explained time and time again in this thread.
The difference between you and I is that I have the intellectual capacity to admit that reasonable minds can disagree without the need to compare you to neo-nazis.
Yeah, neo-Nazis is a little harsh. Glad you didn't get that extreme when you used terms like "gun freaks," "gun nuts" and "lunatic fringe" in earlier posts to disparage those who disagree with you.
Of course those terms didn't really speak to your intellectual capacity though, by your own measure of that being the ability to debate without resorting to invective. Nor did your meritless claim of intellectual superiority over Michi, or your remark that the 2nd Amendment is only simple "to those with simple minds," or countless other condescending comments by you in this thread.
Condescension is particularly galling in people who lack standing to condescend.
This post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
I know it sounds good to throw around a bunch of Constitutional law terms like "strict scrutiny" and "compelling governmental interest," but at the end of the day, it is not a mathematical formula, rather, it is a human being making decisions based in whole, or in part, upon his or her own subjective beliefs as to what is, or is not, appropriate for our society. That is true of both legislators and judges.
I'll let you respond to yourself on that one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
If that passes for a cogent argument in your world, your lack of education makes me sad.
Indeed. Legislators may rely on their "own subjective beliefs" about what's "appropriate for our society" to make decisions but that is absolutely not true of judges. Any 10th grade American Government student knows that.
That said, appellate judges sometimes inject their personal beliefs into dissenting opinions because there they can get away with it, since it doesn't count for anything anyway.
I suspect Stevens and the three justices who signed onto the Heller dissent didn't even believe what they wrote. They clearly are among the people who wish the 2nd Amendment didn't exist because they don't think people should be allowed to have guns. Secure in the knowledge that the conservative majority would out-vote them, they used that cover to make their wishes come true in their pretend Dissenting World where the 2nd Amendment really doesn't exist. Give them another liberal justice to tip the balance and I doubt they'd be so bold. The absurdity of the opinion Stevens wrote is a matter of fact.
Speaking of Stevens, you said earlier that ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
I for one, along with a great many other people, including 4 of the 9 current justices on the SCOTUS, believe there is no Constitutional right to own firearms.
Four of the current justices? Stevens has since retired and you don't know how Kagan would vote.
According to the Democratic Policy & Communications Center, chaired by Sen. Charles Schumer, Kagan recognizes and respects 2nd Amendment rights as "settled law" (her term) pursuant to Heller. In fact the DPCC memo says, "Elena Kagan has consistently expressed her respect for the Heller decision, guaranteeing Second Amendment rights for individuals." Now that doesn't mean she couldn't vote to overturn it. But we don't know whether she would or not, so you're wrong to declare that four of the current nine believe there's no right to own firearms.
There now. See how that easy that was? A simple "you're wrong" makes your disagreement known without the need to get nasty like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
My definition of a gun nut is a person who believes that he has the right to engage in armed resistance to the Government's attempt to enforce laws which he belives are contrary to his rights. ... There is a word for people who reject the democratic process and instead engage in violence as a means to bring about political change, we call them terrorists. ...
Gun nuts = sovereign citizens = Branch Davidians = terrorists = a bad ending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
Here is the bottom-line boys and girls, you gun freaks won the first round 5-4 in the SCOTUS, I feel pretty good that with another couple Democratic appointments we may see the Court revist this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
I submit that the only people who own them are the survivalist nuts, who believe they need these types of guns when our society collapses and it looks like a scene from the Road Warrior. Government should not make policy based upon the desires of a lunatic fringe.
Freaks? Nuts? Lunatics? Oh my!
I'll let you respond to yourself again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
The fact that you seem to want to demonize someone who simply disagrees with you speaks to the inherent weakness of your argument.
Yeah, neo-Nazis is a little harsh. Glad you didn't get that extreme when you used terms like "gun freaks," "gun nuts" and "lunatic fringe" in earlier posts to disparage those who disagree with you.
Of course those terms didn't really speak to your intellectual capacity though, by your own measure of that being the ability to debate without resorting to invective. Nor did your meritless claim of intellectual superiority over Michi, or your remark that the 2nd Amendment is only simple "to those with simple minds," or countless other condescending comments by you in this thread.
Condescension is particularly galling in people who lack standing to condescend.
This post?
I'll let you respond to yourself on that one:
Indeed. Legislators may rely on their "own subjective beliefs" to make decisions but that is absolutely not true of judges. Any 10th grade American Government student knows that.
That said, appellate judges sometimes inject their personal beliefs into dissenting opinions because there they can get away with it, since it doesn't count for anything anyway.
I suspect Stevens and the three justices who signed onto the Heller dissent didn't even believe what they wrote. They clearly are among the people who wish the 2nd Amendment didn't exist because they don't think people should be allowed to have guns. Secure in the knowledge that the conservative majority would out-vote them, they used that cover to make their wishes come true in their pretend Dissenting World where the 2nd Amendment really doesn't exist. Give them another liberal justice to tip the balance and I doubt they'd be so bold. The absurdity of the opinion Stevens wrote is a matter of fact.
Speaking of Stevens, you said earlier that ...
Four of the current justices? Stevens has since retired and you don't know how Kagan would vote.
According to the Democratic Policy & Communications Center, chaired by Sen. Charles Schumer, Kagan recognizes and respects 2nd Amendment rights as "settled law" (her term) pursuant to Heller. In fact the DPCC memo says, "Elena Kagan has consistently expressed her respect for the Heller decision, guaranteeing Second Amendment rights for individuals." Now that doesn't mean she couldn't vote to overturn it. But we don't know whether she would or not, so you're wrong to declare that four of the current nine believe there's no right to own firearms.
There now. See how that easy that was? A simple "you're wrong" makes your disagreement known without the need to get nasty like this:
Freaks? Nuts? Lunatics? Oh my!
I'll let you respond to yourself again:
Perhaps I have been too unkind to my gun loving fellow Americans, I am very sorry if I offended anyone who considers themselves a gun-toting fanatic...
That's okay, I can tell from the 106 messages you've posted in the last three days that you don't have a lot of time for reading. You're too busy writing! Anyway, truth is the post wasn't really directed to you. More for the entertainment of others at your expense.
Perhaps I have been too unkind to my gun loving fellow Americans, I am very sorry if I offended anyone who considers themselves a gun-toting fanatic...
This is just going to go in circles.
You BELIEVE nobody should have a gun.
We BELIEVE we have a right to own a gun or in my case several. We are reading our constitution as it is written. The guys that wrote it were very smart. They left it loosely worded because they knew things would change and evolve in weaponry. It wasn't worded "All men shall own muskets and an 1800 long rifle". This text was written at a time where citizens could have a cannon if they wanted. The could own anything to defend against a government.
With that being said, we are obviously not able to defend against the United States government even if we wanted too. But I have a right to purchase what I want. When I want. And how I want. The federal government should not tell me what I can and can not own. And you libs started going down that path when you wanted obamacare.
Legislators may rely on their "own subjective beliefs" about what's "appropriate for our society" to make decisions but that is absolutely not true of judges. Any 10th grade American Government student knows that.
How incredibly naive you sound. So by your logic, Constitutional interpretation is some mathematical formula, and the "correct" verdict is always rendered by the Court. I assume you agree therefore in the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastaG8r
That said, appellate judges sometimes inject their personal beliefs into dissenting opinions because there they can get away with it, since it doesn't count for anything anyway.
See my prior response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastaG8r
I suspect Stevens and the three justices who signed onto the Heller dissent didn't even believe what they wrote...
Yeah, I am sure you are right, they were just kidding around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastaG8r
Speaking of Stevens, you said earlier that ...
Four of the current justices? Stevens has since retired and you don't know how Kagan would vote.
We BELIEVE we have a right to own a gun or in my case several. We are reading our constitution as it is written. The guys that wrote it were very smart. They left it loosely worded because they knew things would change and evolve in weaponry. It wasn't worded "All men shall own muskets and an 1800 long rifle". This text was written at a time where citizens could have a cannon if they wanted. The could own anything to defend against a government.
With that being said, we are obviously not able to defend against the United States government even if we wanted too. But I have a right to purchase what I want. When I want. And how I want. The federal government should not tell me what I can and can not own. And you libs started going down that path when you wanted obamacare.
This argument again.
OK, well by your logic, if the government has no business telling you what you can and cannot own, then you should also be able to own heroin, slaves, machine guns and atomic bombs, correct?
OK, well by your logic, if the government has no business telling you what you can and cannot own, then you should also be able to own heroin, slaves, machine guns and atomic bombs, correct?
Isn't this already the "I am personally pro life but support the right to choose" logic?
OK, well by your logic, if the government has no business telling you what you can and cannot own, then you should also be able to own heroin, slaves, machine guns and atomic bombs, correct?
If criminals will get guns illegally, which the government cannot stop, why do you think law abiding citizens shouldn't have them as well? Are you familiar with what has been going on in Australia?
__________________
"Don't forget your history;Know your destiny:In the abundance of water,The fool is thirsty." Bob Marley - Rat Race
"Celebrity is when your lifestyle sorta supersedes what your talent is" Questlove from The Roots
Yeah, neo-Nazis is a little harsh. Glad you didn't get that extreme when you used terms like "gun freaks," "gun nuts" and "lunatic fringe" in earlier posts to disparage those who disagree with you.
Of course those terms didn't really speak to your intellectual capacity though, by your own measure of that being the ability to debate without resorting to invective. Nor did your meritless claim of intellectual superiority over Michi, or your remark that the 2nd Amendment is only simple "to those with simple minds," or countless other condescending comments by you in this thread.
Condescension is particularly galling in people who lack standing to condescend.
This post?
I'll let you respond to yourself on that one:
Indeed. Legislators may rely on their "own subjective beliefs" about what's "appropriate for our society" to make decisions but that is absolutely not true of judges. Any 10th grade American Government student knows that.
That said, appellate judges sometimes inject their personal beliefs into dissenting opinions because there they can get away with it, since it doesn't count for anything anyway.
I suspect Stevens and the three justices who signed onto the Heller dissent didn't even believe what they wrote. They clearly are among the people who wish the 2nd Amendment didn't exist because they don't think people should be allowed to have guns. Secure in the knowledge that the conservative majority would out-vote them, they used that cover to make their wishes come true in their pretend Dissenting World where the 2nd Amendment really doesn't exist. Give them another liberal justice to tip the balance and I doubt they'd be so bold. The absurdity of the opinion Stevens wrote is a matter of fact.
Speaking of Stevens, you said earlier that ...
Four of the current justices? Stevens has since retired and you don't know how Kagan would vote.
According to the Democratic Policy & Communications Center, chaired by Sen. Charles Schumer, Kagan recognizes and respects 2nd Amendment rights as "settled law" (her term) pursuant to Heller. In fact the DPCC memo says, "Elena Kagan has consistently expressed her respect for the Heller decision, guaranteeing Second Amendment rights for individuals." Now that doesn't mean she couldn't vote to overturn it. But we don't know whether she would or not, so you're wrong to declare that four of the current nine believe there's no right to own firearms.
There now. See how that easy that was? A simple "you're wrong" makes your disagreement known without the need to get nasty like this:
Freaks? Nuts? Lunatics? Oh my!
I'll let you respond to yourself again:
Well done
__________________ Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
We BELIEVE we have a right to own a gun or in my case several. We are reading our constitution as it is written. The guys that wrote it were very smart. They left it loosely worded because they knew things would change and evolve in weaponry. It wasn't worded "All men shall own muskets and an 1800 long rifle". This text was written at a time where citizens could have a cannon if they wanted. The could own anything to defend against a government.
With that being said, we are obviously not able to defend against the United States government even if we wanted too. But I have a right to purchase what I want. When I want. And how I want. The federal government should not tell me what I can and can not own. And you libs started going down that path when you wanted obamacare.
Any government that tries to oppress an armed citizenry with the will to resist cannot last very long. Because the government can never amount to more than a small fraction of a nation, and intimidation only goes as far as its object permits it to go. There is no need for fatalism whatsoever. This nation simply will not tolerate a tyrannical government for very long.
__________________ Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.
Oh heck, I'll play: How incredibly naive you sound. So by your logic, Constitutional interpretation is some mathematical formula, and the "correct" verdict is always rendered by the Court. I assume you agree therefore in the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade?
How incredibly reading comprehension-challenged you sound. That, or you're a disciple of rivergator's patented strawmanning technique - if it's hard to respond to someone's argument then just change the argument to something else and respond to that instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
See my prior response.
See my prior response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
Yeah, I am sure you are right, they were just kidding around.
See my prior response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
I am pretty sure that we do.
I'm pretty sure we don't. I posted a link from no less than the Democratic Party's official Policy Center stating that, "Elena Kagan has consistently expressed her respect for the Heller decision, guaranteeing Second Amendment rights for individuals." Where's your link to something indicating she'd vote to overturn it?
I'd like to see it because if it's compelling enough then we could conclude that the Democratic Party was behaving in an underhanded and disingenuous way by putting out that memo during her confirmation process suggesting - if not outright stating - that gun rights advocates have nothing to fear from Elena Kagan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
If the shoe fits...
Is that all you have to say for yourself?
According to you, if you can't argue a point without name-calling or vilifying those who disagree, it calls your intellectual capacity into question and speaks to the weakness of your argument. Meanwhile in the same thread where you said those things, you have repeatedly name-called, vilified, disparaged and talked down to those who disagree with you. So what should we conclude about your intellectual capacity and the strength of your arguments, such as they are?
lol
Linear Mode
