another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

[callmeslick]

Slick you are reading the sentence wrong. As I said, it's actually 2 seperate statements

as was already stated to you by Foil(iirc), you are incorrect. There is a preamble, stating the purpose, and the actual delination of rights which flows from that purpose. NOT separate, NOT intended to be, you are simply wrong.

[Will Robinson]

Slick, do you know who the most knowledgable people were who spoke about the intent?
People who knew much more than you and your dead defense attorney friend?

The guys who actually wrote the Bill of Rights!

and, they pared it down to 27 words, specifically limiting the purpose stated to forming a militia. You keep conveniently dancing around that, although I must have pointed you back to it a dozen times. Easier, I suppose, for the lazy brain to make stupid comments about me, and disrespectful ones about a deceased person you never knew.

So you are backed into a corner once again and flailing about with your silly 'disrespecting my dead friend' whine.

I pointed out the facts. I didn't disrespect anyone to suggest their opinion isn't nearly as reliable as the first person accounting archived by the creators of the very document under examination.

You know, as well as I and most people, that the Courts often refer to those archived letters to determine the intent of authors of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has cited that archived trove of commentary in their decisions regarding the founders intent numerous times.

How many times have the courts refered to your opinion on that matter?
Exactly....


One reason they do is they want to get their interpretation of the language correct. For instance the narrow definition you are using for militia is not the proper interpretation of the era those 27 words were chosen to convey a point.
Militia was an able bodied group drawn from the every day life population. Free men who could come carrying their own arms to repel a threat internal or external.

I know that because I've read that first person accounting of the meaning of the word provided to me, you and you deceased friend. You chose to deny the reality and rely on bluster in an attempt to prop up your party's bullfeces.

[callmeslick]

speaking of dancing, it's been PAGES, Will, and you have yet to show me where ONE WORD of the 2nd amendment states any intent beyond the limits I put forth a week ago. You sure are good at blabbering on and repeating the same old stuff, though.

[callmeslick]

How many times have the courts refered to your opinion on that matter?

they upheld it for 175 years. Only the modern(post 1980) Court allowed the other nonsense to drift into the discourse, and of course that was politically motivated.

[Will Robinson]

speaking of dancing, it's been PAGES, Will, and you have yet to show me where ONE WORD of the 2nd amendment states any intent beyond the limits I put forth a week ago. You sure are good at blabbering on and repeating the same old stuff, though.

I have shown you where the Supreme Court and the most renown historians and legal scholars in the world go to find that distinction.

You have denied that reality and instead are relying on a dead friend as your source.

Unless that friend is James Madison and you are prepared to prove it I'm not impressed with your stubborn, desperate, denial of reality.

[Will Robinson]

Hey slick,
How about you finally explain your contention that the 2nd amendment was put in because of an absence of a standing army when, in fact, the 2nd amendment AND a standing army were both put into the law at the same time...under authorization of the same vote.
Your interpretation of intent is seriously flawed because of that.

And yet you continue to puff up indignantly and question my sources for intent clarification?!?

So here, for the third time I ask again...dodge away....

now, Will, YOU confuse me. How is it different that I state that the 2nd was put in place because of a fear/reluctance to have a national standing army, and what you are claiming the founders discussed?

Because you said this:

.... My whole point is that this need and idea was in the ABSOLUTE absence of a Federal Standing Army. ?..

It appears you are suggesting the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to fill a void that an absence of a standing army creates.
And since you have in the past, numerous times, suggested the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer valid...BECAUSE OF the might of the standing army....

Tell me how I have your previous comments wrong or recognize you are in conflict with yourself. ...

[Spidey]

speaking of dancing, it's been PAGES, Will, and you have yet to show me where ONE WORD of the 2nd amendment states any intent beyond the limits I put forth a week ago. You sure are good at blabbering on and repeating the same old stuff, though.

NO…it’s actually the "lack" of one word…that word being “therefore”.

But maybe as vision pointed out they had to work with the resources available at the time, so I guess that word might not have been available yet.

As much as I dislike Wiki, this is actually a pretty good page, and all of it is documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution

Read it all…or don’t bother.

[callmeslick]

there was no standing army WHATSOEVER adopted at that stage. Prove otherwise, Will.

[callmeslick]

Wiki link was nice, but still, none of you seem capable of finding the words within the 2nd Amendment to suggest that it referred to anything other than the necessity of armed citizenry for the formation of a militia. NONE. And, this has been a week I've been asking. I get wiki articles, Supreme court interpretations(wildly varied, as the wiki link noted),and repeated mention of exchanges between Madison et al. But, in the end, the words that got adopted were VERY specific in purpose. Keep trying, by now, it's getting to be flat-out amusing.

[Will Robinson]

there was no standing army WHATSOEVER adopted at that stage. Prove otherwise, Will.

Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...right Mr Clinton.
Lol! You should be embarrassed!

There was no 2nd amendment or Bill of Rights EITHER "at that stage"!

The point I clearly stated was that both were ratified at the same time and if you had read their comments they shared in creating that final draft you would know there was never a vote to have a right to keep and bear arms INSTEAD of a standing army as your assertion requires if it is correct.

Thus your interpretation is still wrong AND now you are desperately playing silly semantics in an attempt to save face.
Whatever, it's only your credibility you are flushing...hardly a concern at this point I'm thinking.

September 17th, 1787. The authorization for the Federal government to have a standing army, along with the rest of the constitution AND the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the first 10 that comprised the Bill of Rights were all ratified.

There was a proposal for a federal standing army during the creation of the Constitution.
It was never not up for consideration by the authors.

During that process there were those who opposed a standing army and there were those who were in favor of it.

There were never any who were opposed to the right to keep and bear arms.

Madison having been swayed from his initial opposition to allowing a standing army then cited in his arguments for authorizing a standing army, the already proposed right to keep and bear arms as a panacea to the potential of TYRANNY that could use a standing army against the people to get the rest of the representatives to get on board with the plan.

That, the second of the people's rights so important they decided to specify them, was already in the works, regardless of how the standing army argument was to be decided.

The standing army and the right of the people to keep and bear arms were NEVER mutually exclusive in any context of any debate. They were never connected at all until Madison cited the right as a counter to the concerns of a standing army being turned on the people.

Those are all easily verified facts. Basic American history. No cryptic language to overcome. The reams of letters known as the Federalist Papers as well as the anti-Federalist writings are there for you to see. They have been the go-to documentation for numerous court cases throughout history.

You can ignore all that if you want to but you just look silly doing it.
Stubborn, partisan silly.

[callmeslick]

you keep going back to the Federalist Papers. Those were discussions, NOT the final law. Yeesh.

[Will Robinson]

you keep going back to the Federalist Papers. Those were discussions, NOT the final law. Yeesh.

You keep citing your interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as somehow more valuable than those papers that all courts and historians and political representatives have always 'gone back to' whenever an understanding of the founders intent in creating the documents is needed.

You have quite an ego. And it is completely unjustified in this instance.

Of course I don't believe for a minute you are really that stupid, or haven't, by this point, examined my sources and discovered how wrong you are.

You are merely resorting to what all partisan hacks due when reality smacks them in the face and they have no substance to their position.
You disparage the source. oohh those are just a bunch of papers???oohh!

So, for you to gain credibility in this debate you need to convince everyone that your interpretation of the events and documentation is superior to that of...well...every qualified scholar/person that has been turned to by the courts et al instead of you for answers!

You have brought a knife to a gunfight and are now standing in the middle of the kill zone declaring bullets to be not-real. Have fun with that.

[callmeslick]

geezus, I have been stating one thing, and ONE THING ALONE. The words of the Amendment mention NO purpose beyond that of formation of 'well-regulated militia'. NOTHING ELSE. Meanwhile, I hear ad nauseaum about Federalist Papers which I damn near had to memorize 40 years ago. That an hand-selected SCOTUS opinions which overlook about 60 that accepted my limitations. What are you babbling about, knives in gun-fights. I bring reading for comprehension and that would appear to be more armaments than many here seem able to muster.

[Will Robinson]

geezus, I have been stating one thing, and ONE THING ALONE. The words of the Amendment mention NO purpose beyond that of formation of 'well-regulated militia'. NOTHING ELSE. Meanwhile, I hear ad nauseaum about Federalist Papers which I damn near had to memorize 40 years ago. That an hand-selected SCOTUS opinions which overlook about 60 that accepted my limitations. What are you babbling about, knives in gun-fights. I bring reading for comprehension and that would appear to be more armaments than many here seem able to muster.

You are making the same interpretation argument that was made in attempting to keep abortion illegal...Jim Crow acceptable...etc etc.

You have selective integrity. You chose to abandon it to prop up a bunch of democrat rhetoric.
Please continue your display!

By the way, there is no such thing as a 'healthy well regulated militia' without a free people who have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms...regardless of the existence or strength of a standing army. The only way that the founders were able to convince the representatives of the colonies to ratifie the Constitution was to make that very point in writing...in the Constitution/Bill of Rights!

History, it taunts you...

[callmeslick]

we have no need for, nor process for organizing, a 'well-regulated militia' in 2014. Beyond that, keep swinging away at me like a drunk in a bar-fight. No harm done so far........

[Will Robinson]

we have no need for, nor process for organizing, a 'well-regulated militia' in 2014. Beyond that, keep swinging away at me like a drunk in a bar-fight. No harm done so far........

Says you....

[callmeslick]

what process is in place, and how would it work?

[vision]

oh btw, show me one ruling where it was aligned with either conservative or liberal lines.

The list would be endless. Here is one from just moments ago:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/09/ ... 412023480/

[Will Robinson]

we have no need for, nor process for organizing, a 'well-regulated militia' in 2014. Beyond that, keep swinging away at me like a drunk in a bar-fight. No harm done so far........

Says you....

what process is in place, and how would it work?

I was referring to the damage done to your credibility.

But I'll play along anyway even though your premise is flawed beyond repair.

What means or method to "process and/or organize the militia" did we have in 1787 that we don't have now? Colonial Twitter? The Quakernetwork?

It seems you have a bad habit of making assertions that you pull from your rear end that have no substantive foundation. You need more fiber in your bullcrap.

[Ferno]

oh btw, show me one ruling where it was aligned with either conservative or liberal lines.

The list would be endless. Here is one from just moments ago:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/09/ ... 412023480/

Sorry, staying a district court injunction is not ruling along party lines.

If you can find one example, I'll consider your position. If it's going to be more of this, then I suggest you consider your position invalid.

[vision]

If you can find one example, I'll consider your position. If it's going to be more of this, then I suggest you consider your position invalid.

Good lord, I can't believe I'm reading this ignorance. This is well-documented. Just read this NYT article and catch up to the rest of us. Most big decisions these days hinge on a single judge who leans just a little bit to the middle of the spectrum.

[callmeslick]

another day, another militia forms:
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/police- ... ody/nhYPB/

[Will Robinson]

Another day and yet again, since the ratification of the Constitution/Bill of Rights in fact, there has been no tyrannical takeover of any town or state in the country subjecting the people to all sorts of horrors.

In chilling echoes of the 'gas-wagon' project pioneered by the Nazis to slaughter criminals, the mentally ill and Jews, this former member of the China People's Party will be handcuffed to a so-called 'humane' bed and executed inside a gleaming new, hi-tech, mobile 'death van.'
After trials of the mobile execution service were launched quietly three years ago - then hushed up to prevent an international row about the abuse of human rights before the Olympics last summer - these vehicles are now being deployed across China.
The number of executions is expected to rise to a staggering 10,000 people this year (not an impossible figure given that at least 68 crimes - including tax evasion and fraud - are punishable by death in China).

What do you think slick...will I run out of examples before you do?

[Sergeant Thorne]

another day, another militia forms:
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/police- ... ody/nhYPB/

Did you think it would never happen to you, slick? My apologies to woodchip. I just couldn't help but be reminded of the the type of posts that some people get down on woodchip for.

[Ferno]

If you can find one example, I'll consider your position. If it's going to be more of this, then I suggest you consider your position invalid.

Good lord, I can't believe I'm reading this ignorance. This is well-documented. Just read this NYT article and catch up to the rest of us. Most big decisions these days hinge on a single judge who leans just a little bit to the middle of the spectrum.

Ignorance? really? tracking down the source of the story while removing the spin of the article you posted is ignorance?

you can believe whatever you want to believe. I see that it's quite clear that you don't want to listen (which puts you in the same camp as the people you hate here). Had you actually read the ruling, your opinion might be different.


Funny how when I agree with you, it's fact but when I disagree it's ignorance.

In closing, I suggest you (to use a common term), cut the crap.

[vision]

you can believe whatever you want to believe.

Yeah, that "whatever" is called data. There is even a wikipedia article called "Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices." Is it just coincidence the conservative/liberal vein of if decision-making sways with the number of appointments by political party? Couldn't be! Judges are above such shenanigans!

[Spidey]

Well…judges are not supposed to rule on ideology or party lines…but there is no way in hell to avoid personal beliefs, so things end up looking the same as if they voted along party lines.

Judges are supposed to rule on the applicable law, but personal bias always comes into play, when interpreting that law. (see rest of thread)

So it all ends up looking partisan, but what can you do, use robots…then who programs the robots.

[Ferno]

you can believe whatever you want to believe.

Yeah, that "whatever" is called data. There is even a wikipedia article called "Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices." Is it just coincidence the conservative/liberal vein of if decision-making sways with the number of appointments by political party? Couldn't be! Judges are above such shenanigans!

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. I prefer to read what the judges wrote myself instead of jumping to the conclusion of "he ruled that way because he was appointed by a republican/democrat!". Also, over the course of time, legal rulings were interpreted better and became more specific in order to align better with what the populace in general were seeking.

That second graphic you linked is interesting. Have a look at landmark case 46 and 47.

Judges are supposed to rule on the applicable law, but personal bias always comes into play, when interpreting that law. (see rest of thread)

Then that would make them horrible judges and would promptly be removed from the bench.