tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post272361587014811377..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Understanding the 2nd AmendmentAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-68704735282977322172009-10-12T09:35:19.773+02:002009-10-12T09:35:19.773+02:00beowulf, Thanks a lot for that Kopel link. I thin...beowulf, Thanks a lot for that Kopel link. I think that'll come in handy when I write a post about Burger's remarks, which I'm planning on doing soon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-87807201845092797752009-10-11T22:26:36.156+02:002009-10-11T22:26:36.156+02:00It is obvious that MikeB has been caught with his ...It is obvious that MikeB has been caught with his pants around his ankles and his token trial lawyer won't dare come to his defense.<br /><br />Cass Sunstien advocates that the judicial branch has nothing to offer and should be abolished.<br /><br />Congrats MikeB, you have aligned yourself with a pure dictatorship italy's history would be proud of.<br /><br />The wonton slaughter of innocent women and childred should appeal to you...<br /><br />Do you ever wake up to their screams????kavemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4439897921334344552009-10-11T20:50:27.575+02:002009-10-11T20:50:27.575+02:00"If you can't come to the forum with an o..."If you can't come to the forum with an open mind, then I don't care to deal with you."<br /><br />Laci the dog, you never addressed the two points I made:<br /><br />1. Is it still treason to fight the government when they start interfering in state matters?<br /><br />2. If the Second Amendment was to prevent a standing army, don't we need armed citizens now, more than ever?AztecRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027951757285806109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4160827488849989912009-10-11T17:22:31.332+02:002009-10-11T17:22:31.332+02:00There is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum wh...<i>There is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum which means because everybody believes it, it must be true.</i><br /><br />Since we're discussing logical fallacies, there's also one called <i>argumentum ad verecundiam</i>, or argument from authority. You might want to brush up on that one.<br /><br />And despite your claim of legal education, I can assure you there is no precedent in American jurisprudence which allows one to ignore a law because one of the Justices "is a political hack". Also, the Supreme Court is not a sporting event, close scores (decisions) do not carry less weight that blowouts. That you would even argue these points makes me wonder about your claims of expertice.TomBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-30693581176046783312009-10-11T17:07:29.194+02:002009-10-11T17:07:29.194+02:00I lost interest in trying to follow this thread wh...I lost interest in trying to follow this thread when I got to <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/10/understanding-2nd-amendment.html?showComment=1255253607857#c3675420138316378454" rel="nofollow">the comment about cheese and kimchi</a>. Between that person, and the one who devotes the bulk of her commentary to long-winded disparagement of the intelligence of everyone who advocates gun rights, the quality of commenters seems to be in decline, Mikeb.<br><br>Still, I would like to recommend <a href="http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/crburger.htm" rel="nofollow">Dave Kopel's superb critique</a> of Burger's assertion that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment is actually the right of some "collective" entity, rather than individual citizens.<br><br><i>Well</i> worth the time of anyone interested in the debate.beowulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018333747052412839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-24012346232077354212009-10-11T16:33:11.687+02:002009-10-11T16:33:11.687+02:00Wow, Laci is really out there, making outlandish s...Wow, Laci is really out there, making outlandish statements without backing them up and then accusing us of being mean. <br /><br /><i>The fact that Justice Scalia is a political hack does not make Heller valid law.</i><br /><br />So if the SCOTUS decision is one you disagree with then it's "not valid law?" How convenient. You do realize that Justice Scalia is neither the Chief Justice nor does he control the rest of the court, so even if he were a "political hack" why would it matter?Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-42121616632402480342009-10-11T15:40:08.354+02:002009-10-11T15:40:08.354+02:00Mike, that's a cop-out answer.
What did the...Mike, that's a cop-out answer. <br /><br />What did the second amendment originally do, and what changed to make it invalid? <br /><br />Could a similar change eliminate other rights without a constitutional amendment?Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59397555518290622232009-10-11T15:35:43.387+02:002009-10-11T15:35:43.387+02:00Sevesteen asked, "what does this version of t...Sevesteen asked, <i>"what does this version of the second amendment actually do?"</i><br /><br />Now, I'm not a lawyer (that's not a snark at you Laci), but I'm beginning to get the idea that the 2nd Amendment does nothing at all for us in the 21st century. If it weren't for the lopsided conservative Supreme Court this would have been made very clear by now instead of all the <a href="http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/the-armed-american/" rel="nofollow">"willful misinterpretation,"</a> as Mike Licht called it, that we have.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-30815837021377122262009-10-11T15:20:41.639+02:002009-10-11T15:20:41.639+02:00Secondly, do any of you deny that the decision in ...<i>Secondly, do any of you deny that the decision in US v. Miller was a unanimous decision?</i><br /><br />I've never heard a good explanation why the Miller case was taken by the Court, sicne it was moot, and there was no defense present. <br /><br />Nevertheless, it really wasn't that much of a win for gun control, since it merely decided that sawed off shotguns were not shown to be militarily useful, and therefore could be restricted. If the Court used that logic on machine guns, I don't see any way that they could have come to the same conclusion. Had there been a defendant present, they could have very easily shown that trench guns were issued by the military. <br /><br /><i>DO any of you deny that within a span of 10 years, the opinion that the Second Amendment encompasses an "individual right" has gained some acceptability in the legal community?<br /><br />Of course, that acceptability is not unanimous as Heller was a 5-4 decision.</i><br /><br />Heller was 9-0 on the individual right portion. The dissent was only on how far the right extended. <br /><br /><i>Do you deny that Heller, being a 5-4 decision could easily be overturned?</i><br /><br />Anything is possible, but since there was no dissent on individual rights, I don't see much chance of substantial challenge.Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-38331764807433937452009-10-11T15:12:33.211+02:002009-10-11T15:12:33.211+02:00Troop strenght at the Battle of Yorktown:
French ...Troop strenght at the Battle of Yorktown:<br /><br />French <br />11,800 regulars<br />29 war ships<br />American<br />5,700 regulars<br />3,100 militia<br /><br />British<br />9,000 soldiers<br /><br />Pro Independence forces<br />United States, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Oneida (tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy), Tuscarora (tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy), Watauga Association, and Catawba<br /><br />Pro-Union Forces<br />Great Britain, Loyalists, Ansbach–Bayreuth, Hesse-Hanau, Hesse-Kassel, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Waldeck-Pyrmont, Iroquois Confederacy, and <br />Cherokee<br /><br /><br />With the exception of the Hessians. The Black slaves, and American Indians were North Americans as were the Loyalist forces <br /><br />The "Hessians" came from King George's German realms (if you know your history, King George I was the Elector of Hanover), which made them subjects of the king. Hessians comprised approximately one-quarter of the British forces in the Revolution. The were not mercenaries in the modern sense of military professionals who voluntarily hire out their own services for money.<br /><br />This was a vast difference from the Americans who had the support of three of the "superpowers" of the time France, Spain, and Holland.<br /><br />I use as many words as are necessary to make my point.<br /><br />Heller was a split decision and still contains the Civic right interpretation.<br /><br />There is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum which means because everybody believes it, it must be true.<br /><br />If you read legal journals, and some non-legal journals, you would find that Heller has been trashed. I would hope that the comparison to Roe v. Wade would shame the hack that wrote Heller.Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63757642288230966532009-10-11T14:57:34.661+02:002009-10-11T14:57:34.661+02:00Also count the points he glosses over. He talks a...Also count the points he glosses over. He talks about Miller being a case that prohibits arms not to be in use by the military (which short barreled shotguns ALWAYS have been a part of, so a flawed interpretation) So he's saying "The People" have a right to military arms. And somehow our current laws aren't a blatant violation? Huhh?<br /><br />Also I liked how he stated: "After the Civil war gun control laws were widespread and largely unchallenged"<br /><br />Yeah, Unchallenged because those laws originated as means to disarm the poor, the blacks and the Indians. They were unchallenged, because violations of the individual rights of these groups were unchallenged as a whole until decades later.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-67289126301904129092009-10-11T14:49:00.224+02:002009-10-11T14:49:00.224+02:00Another typical "Progressive" calling na...Another typical "Progressive" calling names when logic fails.<br /><br />Also another great example of MikeB's partisan Commenting policy.<br /><br />You guys should be proud of yourself.<br /><br />And BTW I say this as a Scientist, so you should bow to my degree and experience! *snerk!*Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-81111531326485441052009-10-11T14:44:48.451+02:002009-10-11T14:44:48.451+02:00Just time for a quick ad hom here...
Laci, you do...Just time for a quick ad hom here...<br /><br />Laci, you don't win arguments by amount of words written.<br /><br />Especially when they don't really say anything.<br /><br />Heller is law of the land right now. None of what you write (and write and write and write.....) invalidates that.TomBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-8635153234329839092009-10-11T14:07:32.213+02:002009-10-11T14:07:32.213+02:00You also know nothing of history, the rag tag minu...<i>You also know nothing of history, the rag tag minutemen got their arses kicked and needed the help of France, Spain, and a few other European powers to beat England.</i><br /><br />So the Hessian, black slaves, and American Indians that fought for the British (and out numbered them) were what, dishwashers? Does this mean that the British were getting their "arses" kicked as well and couldn't fight the war without a "bunch of barbarians" (which is how various British officers described those groups in their personal diaries and letters)?<br /><br />Or maybe I just don't know my history. BTW, could you please quit bragging about being a trial lawyer and going to court millions of times. You said it once, you don't need to repeat it ad infinitum.Reputohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845157593799270355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-87061499256020686982009-10-11T12:26:41.903+02:002009-10-11T12:26:41.903+02:00Aztec Red, they are lies only because they contrad...Aztec Red, they are lies only because they contradict your view of the world. I cite to my sources.<br /><br />You accuse me of lies and half truths, would you care to ellaborate? Beware, Aztec Red, since if you click the links, you will find my sources. Which means that I do have a basis for making those statements, which means your criticism is invalid.<br /><br />But, you have to say that I am lyiing since that gives you an out for disagreeing with me: even though it is a baseless accusation.<br /><br />If you care to ignore what I say, well then that's your problem.<br /><br />I don't allow comments since I find most discourse doesn't address the issues but engages in the diversionary tactics such as baseless accusations and not addressing the issues to avoid exactly addressing the issue.<br /><br />If you can't come to the forum with an open mind, then I don't care to deal with you.<br /><br />As for this discussion, I can tell that none of you understood Cass's lecture.<br /><br />First off, do any of you deny that Berger called the Individual Right theory a fraud upon the American public?<br /><br />Secondly, do any of you deny that the decision in US v. Miller was a unanimous decision?<br /><br />DO any of you deny that within a span of 10 years, the opinion that the Second Amendment encompasses an "individual right" has gained some acceptability in the legal community?<br /><br />Of course, that acceptability is not unanimous as Heller was a 5-4 decision.<br /><br />Do you deny that Heller, being a 5-4 decision could easily be overturned?<br /><br />In case you missed it, I am an experienced trial lawyer.Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-36754201383163784542009-10-11T11:33:27.857+02:002009-10-11T11:33:27.857+02:00What will Cass Sunstein do for me???!!!! I can...What will Cass Sunstein do for me???!!!! I can't read all the rest of the posts since they all seem to smoosh together!<br /><br />I live in an area where you can't buy cheese but you can get 100 different types of kimchi. I want to buy cheese!! Don't I have a right to cheese??!! I live in the USA!!! Why does my local grocery have kimchi but no cheese??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-82144828725751425002009-10-11T09:56:23.014+02:002009-10-11T09:56:23.014+02:00The more of this Laci character I read, the more I...The more of this Laci character I read, the more I find myself needing a shovel and a pair of boots.<br /><br />I've read the first page of her/his/its blog and i can't find a single post that isn't filled with lie and half-truths. No wonder comments are closed over there.AztecRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027951757285806109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-50862281420595500382009-10-11T09:54:59.229+02:002009-10-11T09:54:59.229+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.AztecRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027951757285806109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43427386457449682862009-10-11T07:06:37.451+02:002009-10-11T07:06:37.451+02:00"Also, tyranny as defined by the founding fat..."Also, tyranny as defined by the founding fathers was federal interference in state matters."<br /><br />So is it still treason to fight the government when they start interfering in state matters?<br /><br />"The relevance is that we now have a standing army, which is what the Second Amendment was to prevent."<br /><br />Then it seems the Second Amendment is needed more than ever.AztecRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027951757285806109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63849258860849605742009-10-11T05:38:47.267+02:002009-10-11T05:38:47.267+02:00MikeB...
Since Laci seems incapable of pointing o...MikeB...<br /><br />Since Laci seems incapable of pointing out where I attacked her pesonally, perhaps you could point it out for me?kavemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-39152182194696078142009-10-11T05:30:33.067+02:002009-10-11T05:30:33.067+02:00VOR, I am glad that you do not mind the selective ...VOR, I am glad that you do not mind the selective reading of the constitution made in Heller. As I said, it was a 5-4 decision, which you obviously do not comprehend. Justice Steven's dissent was proper legal analysis of the issue.<br /><br />VOR, you are incapable of critical thinking and need ad hominems to attack me. This is because you can't come up with a valid criticism.<br /><br />I suggest that you read some of the posts on Heller on my blog, better yet try doing some research as there are many articles critical of the Heller decision. I found a very good one at Lew Rockwell.<br /><br />Of course, I expect that the effort given trying to find posts critical of Heller would tax your minds.<br /><br />Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the nature of the problem and the question at hand.<br /><br />Kaveman, you obviously don't understand ad hominem as you make them a signature of your posts.<br /><br />Should Mike B's policy bar you from commenting?<br /><br />I prefer it when people address the issues rather than attack.<br /><br />BUt, I can give better than you can get.Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-45815385125602050142009-10-11T05:20:39.504+02:002009-10-11T05:20:39.504+02:00Laci...
where did I attack you?
Care to clarify?...Laci...<br /><br />where did I attack you?<br /><br />Care to clarify?kavemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-37700139856006313242009-10-11T05:15:22.939+02:002009-10-11T05:15:22.939+02:00Kaveman, you attacked based oupon interests not up...Kaveman, you attacked based oupon interests not upon what I said. you are too much of a wimp to take the crap you give. So, Boo effing Hoo that you won't bother with reading my posts.<br /><br />And if you eejots read my blog, you would find I couldn't give a rat's arse what you think. Neither is there any need to be polite to people who aren't truly interested in what I have to say. I can tell Kaveman that your opinion isn't worth the electrons, let alone the bandwidth you waste in inflicting it upon others.<br /><br />Let alone have no real comprehension of the issues involved.<br /><br />I think the real reason you won't bother with my blog is that you are all keyboard warriors. You can't waste my time, therefore, have no interest in reading it.<br /><br />Sunstein doesn't really give an interpetation of the Second Amendment as much as run through the history of "Scholarship", an understanding of which is something I see missing in the comments.<br /><br />I found his comment about finding an individual right just to find one so that the masses wouldn't be upset interesting in light of <i>Heller</i>.<br /><br />I am not sure what interpretation you mean. I directly quoted Patrick Henry and changed the word musket to rifle. The Second Amendment was to ensure the efficacy of the force created Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.<br /><br />Since that force is basically non-existant, the Second Amendment is a quaint artifact slighly more useful than the Third Amendment.<br /><br />I made comments in my blog relating to the Sunstein piece.<br /><br />Well, I say I would rather be a pseudo intellectual than a real dumbf--ks, which most of you are.<br /><br />Kaveman, you know nothing of me, but I can tell you are not as smart as you think you are. I bet you really think my dog writes this.<br /><br />Since you need to read the profile, but that would strain your grey matter to breaking.<br /><br />You also know nothing of history, the rag tag minutemen got their arses kicked and needed the help of France, Spain, and a few other European powers to beat England. <br /><br />Bob S. I quoted The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (3 Elliot's Debates 384-7) when I ripped off Patrick Henry.<br /><br />As I said, you folks aren't smart enough to spot that I made direct quotes to Patrick Henry and the Heller opinion.<br /><br />So, Kaveman you mere existance is a diss.Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-40804631704445729872009-10-11T04:29:12.145+02:002009-10-11T04:29:12.145+02:00Mud,
Instead of spouting off like Old Faithful in...Mud,<br /><br />Instead of spouting off like Old Faithful in Yellowstone, (lots of hot gases, blowing and full of muck), why don't you provide some citations for your claims?<br /><br /><i>The Founding Fathers never imagined that this piece of legislation would today be used as an excuse for amassing personal arsenals of high-powered weapons.</i><br /><br />How about quoting the words of the Founding Fathers that supports what you say?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63402759893228409132009-10-11T04:01:20.554+02:002009-10-11T04:01:20.554+02:00"You slavishly give up your God given rights ..."You slavishly give up your God given rights to governments."<br /><br />One point of contention here, VOR.<br /><br />Laci is a british subject in the UK. She gave up her rights a long time ago. She is a slave, not a citizen.<br /><br />I sense that her blatant hatred towards Freedom in America is tied to the fact that the colonies handed the Crown its own ass.<br /><br />Treason in her eyes but the ass handing still occurred, didn't it Laci?<br /><br />A bunch of rag-tag minute men defeated what was at the time, the most advanced and disciplined military the world had ever seen.<br /><br />And we defeated them.kavemannoreply@blogger.com