McCain Shocker!

[hoodonit00]

Heres more dealing exactly with what your saying.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

 

[Fubeca]

No less than Antonin Scalia himself held that Heller applies only to handguns and the ruling left other federal restrictions in place. The court also sat by for the duration of the AWB.

There is that slippery slope again...Next some other Judge will interpret all guns and there we go...

 

[Fubeca]

Heres more dealing exactly with what your saying.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

Not to mention a nation that can bare arms is a huge threat to any other nation thinking of invading or a internal revolution!

 

[Fubeca]

hey the rate we are going I may finally hit 2000 posts after 5 years of being here! DAVE I WANT MY SHIRT!

 

[hoodonit00]

No less than Antonin Scalia himself held that Heller applies only to handguns and the ruling left other federal restrictions in place. The court also sat by for the duration of the AWB.

You do know that the AWB was allowed to sunset right? Why? Because it made no difference in crime. Heller vs DC is so much more then handguns, it finally puts it in writing that the right of the people is an individual right.

 

[hoodonit00]

Well...???

That would make about 53 pages now.

 

[barbelith]

The plain language of the text makes no exclusions. The interpretation does. What am I missing?

Your interpretation is that the absence of exclusions proves inclusive. That's certainly one opinion. Do you see the problem here? We need a mechanism for interpretation because no two people will have an identical reading of the document. Certainly the Supreme Court did not find issue with the constitutionality of the AWB.

The role of the court is to apply the letter of the law to specific cases. There is no room for interpretation. If what they lack is a context to understand the language of the law, all they need to do is look to the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the nominal Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers justifies judicial review.

What you claimed is that their interpretations, regardless of their nature, qualify as constitutional based on their authority as the highest court.

That's literally how the system works.

No document can confer a right.

I would have thought it would be obvious a discussion of the courts is focusing itself on legal rights rather than natural rights.

I wish they would come for the Communist, Socialist, and Liberals. Then we could go back to the great country we once were.

I think we're done here.

 

[hoodonit00]

Not to mention a nation that can bare arms is a huge threat to any other nation thinking of invading or a internal revolution!

Now you stop with all that making sense and all. You should have been here earlier where I was told that if you kill a criminal in the process of attacking you or your family it makes you a murderer. Another guy said he likes to shoot, but if someone breaks into his house he will use a metal pipe to defend himself. What's that saying, Don't bring a metal pipe to a gun fight.

 

[hoodonit00]

Barbelith, you still haven't told me how old you are. I would like to know if I'm dealing with an adult or some young kid who has not experienced any of the real world yet.

 

[hoodonit00]

Damn, ran him off.

 

[Bannister]

Now you stop with all that making sense and all. You should have been here earlier where I was told that if you kill a criminal in the process of attacking you or your family it makes you a murderer. Another guy said he likes to shoot, but if someone breaks into his house he will use a metal pipe to defend himself. What's that saying, Don't bring a metal pipe to a gun fight.

How the hell else is he supposed to attract the lightning to kill it. Sometimes I think you guys just aren't paying any attention.

 

[barbelith]

Damn, ran him off.

Nah. It's just that I'm not interested in pretending someone who can type the following has any credibility left to work with:

"I wish they would come for the Communist, Socialist, and Liberals. Then we could go back to the great country we once were."

Why do you hate America?

 

[devilof76]

Your interpretation is that the absence of exclusions proves inclusive. That's certainly one opinion. Do you see the problem here? We need a mechanism for interpretation because no two people will have an identical reading of the document. Certainly the Supreme Court did not find issue with the constitutionality of the AWB.

Are you really saying that my choice to employ logic in understanding the words used in the amendment is arbitrary? Because in the logic I learned, there are really only three options: all, some, and none.

The amendment does not say "some arms". It does not say "no arms". Conclusion?

The Federalist Papers justifies judicial review.

Judicial review does not apply to the Founding document.

That's literally how the system fails.

Fixed.

I would have thought it would be obvious a discussion of the courts is focusing itself on legal rights rather than natural rights.

Where rift between the two has developed, the Court is no longer doing it's job. The Founders attempted to construct a system in which the law upheld natural rights. If the Court cannot apply law consistently with that intent, it has abdicated its authority.

 

[Fubeca]

I'm still here! and waiting!

 

[hoodonit00]

Nah. It's just that I'm not interested in pretending someone who can type the following has any credibility left to work with:

"I wish they would come for the Communist, Socialist, and Liberals. Then we could go back to the great country we once were."

Why do you hate America?

I love America, I hate Communist, Socialist, and Liberals.

 

[devilof76]

Nah. It's just that I'm not interested in pretending someone who can type the following has any credibility left to work with:

"I wish they would come for the Communist, Socialist, and Liberals. Then we could go back to the great country we once were."

Paraphrasing Voltaire, I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it, until you make it a law and force me to obey your moral injunctions, in which case all bets are off.

 

[barbelith]

And just for the record here is Scalia writing the majority opinion in Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

 

[hoodonit00]

Nah. It's just that I'm not interested in pretending someone who can type the following has any credibility left to work with:

"I wish they would come for the Communist, Socialist, and Liberals. Then we could go back to the great country we once were."

Why do you hate America?

You've been dancing around every question thrown at you for over a 100 pages and you question my credibility. You still haven't told me how old you are.

 

[hoodonit00]

And just for the record here is Scalia writing the majority opinion in Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

I know you would have been happier if one of the Libs wrote the majority, but they didn't. I've already read Heller when it first came out. You just know about it because I brought it up. I know what it says. My other quote I posted trumps what you wrote. I do understand that I can't have an RPG. I also know I can't walk around the mall with my AR hanging off my shoulder and for whatever purpose means I can't just go around shooting people.

 

[barbelith]

Are you really saying that my choice to employ logic in understanding the words used in the amendment is arbitrary?

The application of your "logic" is arbitrary. It is only opinion that the lack of a modifier implies no modifier. Your right to property is not a right to my property nor a right to every type of property in existence.

Judicial review does not apply to the Founding document.

It does. Hamilton wrote about it at length. Judicial review has been taken to include interpretation of the constitutionality of law since the birth of the court.

Where rift between the two has developed, the Court is no longer doing it's job. The Founders attempted to construct a system in which the law upheld natural rights. If the Court cannot apply law consistently with that intent, it has abdicated its authority.

In your opinion. You seem to have trouble with opinions.