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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2013, 06:08 AM  
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107686
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: 56,177
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, 02:43 PM   #91
Chief Faithful Chief Faithful is offline
Predicting Chiefs Victory
 
Chief Faithful's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2001
Casino cash: $41878
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
It's quite important to my claim that the 2nd Amendment, for most of American history, was intrinsically tied into militia purposes.

McDonald is the first time that the Second Amendment right was incorporated to the states. Before that, if you had a problem with your state's gun law because it infringed on your personal use of a gun, who did you take it up with?
Wow, where do you come up with this? The second amendment was inspired from the English Bill of Rights from 1689 where right to bear arms was considered a natural right for purposes of individual self-defense, individual resistance to oppression and third the ability to organize with the state in defense as part of the individuals civic duty. At the time of the English Bill of Rights the individual right for self defense was a earth moving new right. Our forefathers were very aware and in agreement with this natural right and felt the English were not observing it in the new world and this to them was a very oppressive treatment. There was a strong desire to ensure this individual right was not lost, which is why it is an amendment so high on the list. Your interpretation leaves out 2 of the 3 intrinsic purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

By the way, the Supreme Court agrees (2008 and again in 2010) the intent of the second amendment is both an individual right and a militia right just as was originally defined in the English Bill of Rights. I believe the only reason the Supreme Court did not have similar rulings much earlier is because only the current generation is trying to redefine it.

Last edited by Chief Faithful; 04-24-2013 at 02:49 PM..
Posts: 4,266
Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Chief Faithful has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:44 PM   #92
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701061
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Not a bad question. I can see where you might think you have made a good point. The answer is obvious, though, if you know about what rights the states granted to citizens. Not, emphatically not, what rights the Amendments granted to those citizens from laws by the states (which was essentially none until the 20th century).

Where was Dred Scot a citizen, if he was one? Missouri, I believe? Did Missouri law grant citizens the ability to own a firearm? Absolutely. I don't know that for sure, but I know it as general knowledge.
You can't possibly be this stupid and expect to actually win a debate. You continue to think (for some ridiculous reason) that a right can't be an individual right until after incorporation. The argument that the 2nd Amendment refers to a collective right and not an individual right has NOTHING to do with when the incorporation doctrine was applied to it. NOTHING. How ****ing dense does one have to be to try to shoehorn that it there. Wow.

Ok now back to Dred Scott. Again 9not surprisingly) you missed the point. WHY would the Supreme Court mention negros having a right to bear arms if in fact the right ONLY ap[plied to State militias? If a state has the right to regulate it's own militia(which we can both agree was definitely the thinking of the Court at that time) why couldn't that racist state simply say "no darkies in our militias!!" It makes ZERO sense to mention the right to bear arms unless the court CLEARLY sees it as an individual right.

Unlike you, I don't have to contort shit to find some crazy way to prop up a ridiculous stance.I just have to read.
Posts: 14,281
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:54 PM   #93
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Faithful View Post
Wow, where do you come up with this? The second amendment was inspired from the English Bill of Rights from 1689 where right to bear arms was considered a natural right for purposes of individual self-defense, individual resistance to oppression and third the ability to organize with the state in defense as part of the individuals civic duty. Your interpretation leaves out 2 of the 3 intrinsic purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

By the way, the Supreme Court agrees (2008 and again in 2010) the intent of the second amendment is both an individual right and a militia right just as was originally defined in the English Bill of Rights. I believe the only reason the Supreme Court did not have similar rulings much earlier is because only the current generation is trying to redefine it.
I came up with it by studying Constitutional Law history. What I'm saying is actually not very controversial.

Here's what the English Bill of Rights says about arms: "And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare . . . That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;. . . "
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, 02:58 PM   #94
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
You can't possibly be this stupid and expect to actually win a debate. You continue to think (for some ridiculous reason) that a right can't be an individual right until after incorporation. The argument that the 2nd Amendment refers to a collective right and not an individual right has NOTHING to do with when the incorporation doctrine was applied to it. NOTHING. How ****ing dense does one have to be to try to shoehorn that it there. Wow.
I've actually never thought nor reasonably implied that "a right can't be an individual right until after incorporation." That literally makes no sense. Are you sure you are able to handle this discussion, because it seems like you are resorting to made-up fantasies you wish I'd said, rather than an ability to deal with what I had said.

Quote:
Ok now back to Dred Scott. Again 9not surprisingly) you missed the point. WHY would the Supreme Court mention negros having a right to bear arms if in fact the right ONLY ap[plied to State militias? If a state has the right to regulate it's own militia(which we can both agree was definitely the thinking of the Court at that time) why couldn't that racist state simply say "no darkies in our militias!!" It makes ZERO sense to mention the right to bear arms unless the court CLEARLY sees it as an individual right.

Unlike you, I don't have to contort shit to find some crazy way to prop up a ridiculous stance.I just have to read.
Why would the Supreme Court give that reason in the Dred Scot case? For the reason I just said. I really think that is simple to comprehend. But let's actually turn to the language of the case, though. Is there a line you wish to quote from it?

The ironic thing with your last paragraph is that you've completely contorted what I've said in this thread and have done a poor job at reading my posts. But you're right that you don't have to do so. I wish you would actually carry out like 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, 03:03 PM   #95
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701061
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I came up with it by studying Constitutional Law history. What I'm saying is actually not very controversial.
No, it's not controversial... it's a complete joke of a lie. You are basing your lie upon the few cases in history where the Court addressed anything even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment. You then extrapolate those cases to be the entirety of the Court's thinking on the subject.

So basically if the Court didn't rule that the sky was blue, we can assume that for the last 230+ years they didn't think it was! Truly stunning logic!

As I showed with Dred Scott, the Court accepted the right to bear arms outside JUST the context of a militia. There weren't previous rulings because there didn't need to be. That doesn't mean the Court's recent rulings are some break from tradition.

Sad about how ridiculous you are and your over inflated opinion of yourself.... BUT I'm encouraged to know that idiots like you are the future of the left.
Posts: 14,281
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 03:13 PM   #96
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
No, it's not controversial... it's a complete joke of a lie. You are basing your lie upon the few cases in history where the Court addressed anything even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment. You then extrapolate those cases to be the entirety of the Court's thinking on the subject.
This isn't a lie. Yes, I'm basing my opinion largely from what the Court said in Second Amendment cases. How else would I be able to determine the "interpretation favored by the Court for most of the nation's history?" By looking at something other than Supreme Court cases? Truly stunning logic!

Quote:
So basically if the Court didn't rule that the sky was blue, we can assume that for the last 230+ years they didn't think it was! Truly stunning logic!
So basically, if the Court consistently ruled that the sky was legally blue until 2008, we can assume [actually, we can say with certainty] that for most of American history, the sky was legally blue according to the Court.

Quote:
As I showed with Dred Scott, the Court accepted the right to bear arms outside JUST the context of a militia. There weren't previous rulings because there didn't need to be. That doesn't mean the Court's recent rulings are some break from tradition.
Of course they accepted that such a right existed. All we have to do is look at state constitutions or laws to know that such a right existed. That doesn't mean it meant the Second Amendment was always understood to be an absolute federal protection of an ordinary citizen's right to a weapon from any regulation/prohibition. It simply was not that expansive.

Now you probably know why Heller and McDonald was notable. Cases don't get to the Supreme Court because the existing law needs to be verified.

Let's talk about Presser, shall we?
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, 03:16 PM   #97
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post

Sad about how ridiculous you are and your over inflated opinion of yourself.... BUT I'm encouraged to know that idiots like you are the future of the left.
I'm reminded of your discussion with cdcox over global warming. You enter a discussion of a field in which you have little to no actual education in, outside of your own untrustworthy research, declare the opponent (who has been educated in that subject) to be a liar, a moron, etc., and end up basically flailing about in an emotional, off-point tantrum.

Humility and self-awareness seem to be character traits you desperately need to improve on.
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, 03:34 PM   #98
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701061
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
This isn't a lie. Yes, I'm basing my opinion largely from what the Court said in Second Amendment cases. How else would I be able to determine the "interpretation favored by the Court for most of the nation's history?" By looking at something other than Supreme Court cases? Truly stunning logic!

So basically, if the Court consistently ruled that the sky was legally blue until 2008, we can assume [actually, we can say with certainty] that for most of American history, the sky was legally blue according to the Court.
You are not a bright individual at all. I will try to explain it again so maybe you can follow but I doubt it. The Court has had very few cases in history that relate to the 2nd Amendment at all. Discounting Miller where one side didn't show up, there are NONE until recently that would deal directly with the issue of individual rights outside the militia context. THAT DOES NOT mean that the right didn't exist as such in the minds of the Court. We can look at historical documents to show that. We can also look at glancing mentions like the one in Dred Scott.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Of course they accepted that such a right existed. All we have to do is look at state constitutions or laws to know that such a right existed. That doesn't mean it meant the Second Amendment was always understood to be an absolute federal protection of an ordinary citizen's right to a weapon from any regulation/prohibition. It simply was not that expansive.

Now you probably know why Heller and McDonald was notable. Cases don't get to the Supreme Court because the existing law needs to be verified.

Let's talk about Presser, shall we?
I have never stated that the 2nd Amendment was always that expansive. Even Heller and McDonald don't say the 2nd nullifies any and all regulation of arms. I have simply stated that your convoluted view that the 2nd was seen by the Court as ONLY applicable in the context of a state militia is ridiculous revisionist history. A bald faced lie.
Posts: 14,281
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 03:40 PM   #99
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
You are not a bright individual at all. I will try to explain it again so maybe you can follow but I doubt it. The Court has had very few cases in history that relate to the 2nd Amendment at all. Discounting Miller where one side didn't show up, there are NONE until recently that would deal directly with the issue of individual rights outside the militia context. THAT DOES NOT mean that the right didn't exist as such in the minds of the Court. We can look at historical documents to show that. We can also look at glancing mentions like the one in Dred Scott.
Okay, let's suppose Miller wasn't at one point in time the controlling view of the Second Amendment. Let's take a look at Presser, yeah? I've asked you some questions about it which you've still evaded.
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, 03:44 PM   #100
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701061
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
I'm reminded of your discussion with cdcox over global warming. You enter a discussion of a field in which you have little to no actual education in, outside of your own untrustworthy research, declare the opponent (who has been educated in that subject) to be a liar, a moron, etc., and end up basically flailing about in an emotional, off-point tantrum.

Humility and self-awareness seem to be character traits you desperately need to improve on.
You have no clue what my education is. Oh wait... your just going to assume... much like your baseless assumptions about the Supreme Court's thinking throughout history.

Also, you do know that cdcox is NOT formally educated in the subject right? Cdcox and I have very similar educational background as a matter of fact. (So does RainMan .. although I went to far better schools )

The fact that you think I didn't clearly win the debate with cdcox shows your complete lack of ability to think critically. Btw TipTap is the one with the formal training in the field(pretty sure on this)... and he didn't refute what I was saying...

Now on to your last little insult.

Listen you presumptuous little prick. I'm sure I could do with humility, self awareness really isn't an issue but you know what is? I am a hypocrite. Which means... curb your ****ing attitude or find someplace else to spew your revisionist crap.
Posts: 14,281
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 03:51 PM   #101
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701061
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Okay, let's suppose Miller wasn't at one point in time the controlling view of the Second Amendment. Let's take a look at Presser, yeah? I've asked you some questions about it which you've still evaded.
Presser has nothing to do with this argument. The fact that you think it does shows how off you are. Nothing in Presser addresses the Court's feeling one way or the other on applying the 2nd Amendment outside the sole context of a militia. If you can't understand that than there is no point in continuing.
Posts: 14,281
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 03:54 PM   #102
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
You have no clue what my education is. Oh wait... your just going to assume... much like your baseless assumptions about the Supreme Court's thinking throughout history.

Also, you do know that cdcox is NOT formally educated in the subject right? Cdcox and I have very similar educational background as a matter of fact. (So does RainMan .. although I went to far better schools )
Yes, I'm going to assume that you're not a professor of earth science and you don't have a law degree, or a degree in American history. You can confirm that formally, but your informal ways of doing so are fine by me.

Quote:
Listen you presumptuous little prick. I'm sure I could do with humility, self awareness really isn't an issue but you know what is? I am a hypocrite. Which means... curb your ****ing attitude or find someplace else to spew your revisionist crap.
So you're going to ban me because I'm telling you a history you find uncomfortable (though you're not even really listening to me)?
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, 03:57 PM   #103
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Presser has nothing to do with this argument. The fact that you think it does shows how off you are. Nothing in Presser addresses the Court's feeling one way or the other on applying the 2nd Amendment outside the sole context of a militia. If you can't understand that than there is no point in continuing.
Actually, Presser does deal with the 2nd Amendment and its applicability to the context of a militia and a state regulation.
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, 04:03 PM   #104
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701061
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Actually, Presser does deal with the 2nd Amendment and its applicability to the context of a militia and a state regulation.
No it doesn't.. at least not in the way you seem to think it does. It does not show in any way that the Court ONLY thought it was applicable in relation to a state militia.. which is what you have been arguing.
Posts: 14,281
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 04:08 PM   #105
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
No it doesn't.. at least not in the way you seem to think it does. It does not show in any way that the Court ONLY thought it was applicable in relation to a state militia.. which is what you have been arguing.
Are you going to answer my previous questions, or should I just go right to "What's the result/conclusion in Presser?"
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 04:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.