Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2013, 07:08 AM  
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $18223
Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bomb

Like I said, more police state is coming. The scared sheeple will obey too.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks....

The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.
Another reason why Progressives are closet totalitarians.


http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomb...ave-to-change/
Posts: 59,043
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:26 PM   #121
LiveSteam LiveSteam is offline
All aboard the crazy train
 
LiveSteam's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: homeof43conferencetitles
Casino cash: $9616
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
At this point, you have to realize you're a beaten dog. Let's have a quick overview of how this conversation played out (so far).

1) I say that the Court's interpretation [not yours, not mine, not even James Madison's] of the Second Amendment for most of American history viewed the militia component as intrinsic to the right to bare arms.
2) You throw tantrum.
3) I cite U.S. v. Miller which you agree demonstrates what I've said in (1).
4) You say we should disregard Miller as a statement of the Court's interpretation because you don't agree with it.
5) I cite Presser v. Illinois.
6) You say its irrelevant, and won't discuss it unless I "address" Raiderhader's link.
7) A quick browse of Raiderhader's link clearly shows no mention of Presser or Miller, or even any Supreme Court case dealing with the 2nd Amendment.

So how am I to demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment if you refuse to allow me to even bring up any Court cases dealing with the Second Amendment? Instead, you want me to focus on something other than documents that would demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation.

At this point, you have to realize how unreasonable you are being. And that's a generous, a very generous, characterization of how you've acted in this thread.
I can still buy guns. & i will be able to continue to buy guns.































































YOU LOSE FOOL!
Posts: 17,228
LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:31 PM   #122
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderhader View Post
It is the documented view of many Founders that the people themselves were the militia. Colonial militia men were expected as much as possible to provide their own arms and powder.

So, in playing along with your militia centered theory, I find it nigh impossible to accept the premise of your theoretical SC case. A state law passed denying the right to own a double barreled musket would not pass muster as that weapon was viewed not just as a personal weapon but, also a weapon of/for the defense of the country.
I'm sorry you find it "nigh impossible to accept the premise" of my hypothetical case. It was supposed to be instructive in showing how important federalism was in the early American nation.

Perhaps if we dealt with an actual state regulation that occurred in the 19th century regarding an infringement of someone's right to drill or parade with arms you would be able to think about the actual historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment (and the Bill of Rights).

Freedom of speech was obviously important to the Founders too. I can find you a lot of websites that are quite objective that would show you that, as well. That doesn't mean the Constitutional interpretation of the 1st Amendment for most of American history meant that a state couldn't prohibit someone from advocating to protest against the governor and march on the state capital.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:33 PM   #123
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderhader View Post
I am discouraged to know that they are the future of anything.
Aw, shucks.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:34 PM   #124
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveSteam View Post
I can still buy guns. & i will be able to continue to buy guns.

YOU LOSE FOOL!
What exactly did I lose by you being able to buy guns? Certainly not an argument about the Supreme Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:38 PM   #125
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $10550
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
At this point, you have to realize you're a beaten dog. Let's have a quick overview of how this conversation played out (so far).

1) I say that the Court's interpretation [not yours, not mine, not even James Madison's] of the Second Amendment for most of American history viewed the militia component as intrinsic to the right to bare arms.
2) You throw tantrum.
3) I cite U.S. v. Miller which you agree demonstrates what I've said in (1).
4) You say we should disregard Miller as a statement of the Court's interpretation because you don't agree with it.
5) I cite Presser v. Illinois.
6) You say its irrelevant, and won't discuss it unless I "address" Raiderhader's link.
7) A quick browse of Raiderhader's link clearly shows no mention of Presser or Miller, or even any Supreme Court case dealing with the 2nd Amendment.

So how am I to demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment if you refuse to allow me to even bring up any Court cases dealing with the Second Amendment? Instead, you want me to focus on something other than documents that would demonstrate the Court's historical interpretation.

At this point, you have to realize how unreasonable you are being. And that's a generous, a very generous, characterization of how you've acted in this thread.
Oh wait! I can do this to. My recap.
1) you lie
2) I call you out
3) you cite nonsense and disregard anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived view
4) I stop playing along until you address link
5) you continue to be an idiot and apparently don't know how the web works


Let's very quickly address #5...

Raiderhader's link was to guncite.com right?
Here on that very site are comments addressing Supreme Court decisions... http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

So it's painfully clear that you have no interest in the truth but instead just pushing your ****ed up view of history.

Let's also address the fact that it is the right to BEAR arms.. not bare.

I also didn't say we should disregard Miller because I don't agree with it, I said it alone doesn't demonstrate your point AND it was an uncontested case so it is hardly representative.

Let's pretend for a second that Miller perfectly illustrates your point. (which it doesn't) At best, it shows that throughout most of the 20th century the Court took a militia-centric view of the 2nd. That does not equate to "most of it's history."

Where you continue to go wrong is to assume that because the few older cases do address issues related to militias that they represent ALL of the Court's thoughts regarding the 2nd. That is a MASSIVE (and false) assumption on your part. This is refuted by historical papers from jurists throughout American history and also shown clearly to be false in other places like the Dred Scott opinion.

It's a basic failure in logic on your part and proves how desperate you are to justify your revisionist history bullshit.

btw, you little list is nigh upon delusional.. oh and you quite obviously don't have a clue what intrinsic means.
Posts: 15,102
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:43 PM   #126
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $10550
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
What exactly did I lose by you being able to buy guns? Certainly not an argument about the Supreme Court's historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.
No you lost that by not having a clue what you are talking about. You might want to take some logic classes because it's fairly clear that you lack understanding of some fairly basic concepts.
Posts: 15,102
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:52 PM   #127
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post

Raiderhader's link was to guncite.com right?
Here on that very site are comments addressing Supreme Court decisions... http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

So it's painfully clear that you have no interest in the truth but instead just pushing your ****ed up view of history.
Okay great. So now we can focus on these cases, then, right (and other SCOTUS cases)?

Quote:
Let's also address the fact that it is the right to BEAR arms.. not bare.
Okay, we can.

Quote:
I also didn't say we should disregard Miller because I don't agree with it, I said it alone doesn't demonstrate your point AND it was an uncontested case so it is hardly representative.
Oh, I never said that it alone is all I have. It does demonstrate my point, though. I have other cases, too.

Quote:
Let's pretend for a second that Miller perfectly illustrates your point. (which it doesn't) At best, it shows that throughout most of the 20th century the Court took a militia-centric view of the 2nd. That does not equate to "most of it's history."
Okay, which is why I'm trying to talk about other cases from SCOTUS history, in addition to Miller.

Quote:
Where you continue to go wrong is to assume that because the few older cases do address issues related to militias that they represent ALL of the Court's thoughts regarding the 2nd. That is a MASSIVE (and false) assumption on your part. This is refuted by historical papers from jurists throughout American history and also shown clearly to be false in other places like the Dred Scott opinion.

It's a basic failure in logic on your part and proves how desperate you are to justify your revisionist history bullshit.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm using the actual court cases that demonstrate the Court's thoughts regarding the 2nd Amendment (and other Amendments), as well as 'other places' in American history.

Quote:
btw, you little list is nigh upon delusional.. oh and you quite obviously don't have a clue what intrinsic means.
I'm using it like "essential." I think that's what it means. The militia clause was interpreted by the Supreme Court as an essential component of the 2nd Amendment. Feel free to show why 'intrinsic' doesn't mean that.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:52 PM   #128
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
No you lost that by not having a clue what you are talking about. You might want to take some logic classes because it's fairly clear that you lack understanding of some fairly basic concepts.
I'm lacking some fairly basic logical concepts? Such as what?
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 09:26 PM   #129
Raiderhader Raiderhader is offline
SteelSkull
 
Raiderhader's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Strawberry Hill
Casino cash: $10499
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I'm sorry you find it "nigh impossible to accept the premise" of my hypothetical case. It was supposed to be instructive in showing how important federalism was in the early American nation.

Perhaps if we dealt with an actual state regulation that occurred in the 19th century regarding an infringement of someone's right to drill or parade with arms you would be able to think about the actual historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment (and the Bill of Rights).

Freedom of speech was obviously important to the Founders too. I can find you a lot of websites that are quite objective that would show you that, as well. That doesn't mean the Constitutional interpretation of the 1st Amendment for most of American history meant that a state couldn't prohibit someone from advocating to protest against the governor and march on the state capital.

Ha, the guy who can't even admit that the larger scope of the Civil War was over the battle for authority with in the Federalist system is wanting to teach me about how important Federalism was in the early days of the country. That's rich.

I understand all too well the importance placed upon it. INFACT, I have even used the very concept of it when making the case for the true reasoning behind the Second Amendment. It goes something like this -

The Founders of this country did not trust government. They saw it as a necessary evil. This can be seen in not only their own words but, in the way the Constitution was designed. They did not believe that any one entity should have to much power, let alone all of it. The system of checks and balances goes beyond just the three branches of the federal government. There are checks of the federal system from the states. There are checks on the states from the federal level. There are checks on the people by both. There are checks on both from the people. How are the people to keep the governments they elect in check with out being equally armed as them? Given the Founders mistrust in government, and given the fact that they had just come out of a situation where they had taken up arms against their government, it is pretty apparent to me that they intended for the populace to always be armed, just in case.

With that thought process, your theoretical SC case still ends with the law being over-turned. Lest the delicate balance of power that they worked so hard to create be upset.

So you lose on the militia argument, and you lose on your Federalism argument. Are you starting to detect a pattern here? Because I sure am.
__________________
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."

-- George Orwell, Shooting an Elephant
Posts: 17,828
Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.Raiderhader threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 09:38 PM   #130
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderhader View Post
Ha, the guy who can't even admit that the larger scope of the Civil War was over the battle for authority with in the Federalist system is wanting to teach me about how important Federalism was in the early days of the country. That's rich.
While it's true that the southern 'peculiar institution' was the most significant factor that ultimately led to the Civil War, that doesn't mean that federalism wasn't an important issue in America's early history (and still to this day, to a still significant degree). No need to throw in a false dichotomy in here.

Quote:
With that thought process, your theoretical SC case still ends with the law being over-turned. Lest the delicate balance of power that they worked so hard to create be upset.
Well, I hope you're sitting down, because in the case I most recently gave you, the law was upheld.

Quote:
So you lose on the militia argument, and you lose on your Federalism argument. Are you starting to detect a pattern here? Because I sure am.
Yes, I am. It's that you have a really elementary, superficial understanding of American history. Also, you have basically no clue what the incorporation of the Bill of Rights entails, if you've even heard of that phrase before tonight.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:46 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.