Law abiding citizens should be able to own registered firearms for home protection.Not:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."I think it's great that judges can make and change the law without regard to precedent. They really should be able to ignore what the constitution says and make up their own laws--especially if they relate to personal freedoms.
Or what the law actually says.
Especially since it affirms that it's an "individual right"--whatever that's supposed to mean.
Don't you?
Yes, you have turned me around to your point of view. I've seen the light!
The gun fairies will protect us.
They don't ignore what the constitution says so much as they interpret it correctly to mean that people can own guns.
ReplyDeleteThe whole "individual right" nonsense was created to counter your crowd who was under the delusion that the 2nd Amendment was a "collective right".
Aztec Red, I'm glad to see that you agree that what the constition says isn't important--It's how the judges decide it should be interpreted that is the important part.
ReplyDeleteDamn the Constititon, it's only a piece of paper.
But, you don't quite understand what exactly the Supreme Court said. They said only law abiding citizens.
Their holding was:
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
As I said, this says that registration, background checks, and licensing are acceptable.
Gun bans are not.
Criminals are still barred from owniing guns.
We can't have that can we Aztec Red? Criminals are part of the people--aren't they?
So, they did ignore what the constitution said.
They ignored it completely.
But, I see that doesn't bother you.
If it doesn't bother you, then I am not botered by it either.
The Constitution is only a worthless piece of paper.
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, already had addressed the issue of the militias.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Second Amendment, the founders were very clear when framing the entire document, when referring to the state, they used the word 'state'; when referring to individual rights, they used the word 'people.'
Even if there were no Second Amendment, the Ninth Amendment would clearly have given the individual the right to bear arms.
Again, the Ninth speaks of the 'people' not the state.
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effective way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"... No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his ouwn land."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, 1776
"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed - unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison
"... that the [federal] Constitution be never construed to prevent the people who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
And never, never, never, forget:
"This country was founded by religious nuts with guns."
– P.J. O'Rourke
Laci, you are incorrect when you assert that criminals are part of "the People". Spend about an hour researching the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are legal documents and have legal definitions in them. It is well established that when the Constitution or Bill of Rights refers to "the People", it means all upstanding citizens of the nation. Have you ever noticed that the word "People" is capitalized on those documents? No Constitutional advocate who understands the Constitution would ever assert that the Second Amendment protects the right of criminals to bear arms.
ReplyDeleteTo put all of the Bill of Rights in simple terms, the Bill of Rights is stating pre-existing, inalienable rights for honorable people to live with liberty, doing honorable things. Unfortunately people sometimes confuse liberty with freedom. We are not free to do anything. I am not free to murder my neighbor because I do not like the color of his shirt. I am free to live my life and leave my neighbor alone.
A simple way to paraphrase the Second Amendment is to say that honorable citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for security purposes. An honorable citizen does not set out to rob someone. A robbery is not an act to secure someone or their community or their State.
Again, spend some time researching this and you will get a fuller understanding of the mindset and intent of our nation's founding fathers.
Anonymous wrote It is well established that when the Constitution or Bill of Rights refers to "the People", it means all upstanding citizens of the nation.
ReplyDeleteReally? Got a source for that statement? Something that reflects a judicial decision or finding?
As to your contention that the Constitution only applies to law abiding citizens, those nice people you want it to apply to apparently, because 'upstanding' is not a legal term or definition, have you READ the 4th amendment? It applies to criminals.
I will leave it to Laci to sort you out more eruditely on this, but I believe you have some odd and very wrong misconceptions about who is entitled to the protections and rights in the U.S. Constitution.
Did you take and pass a K-12 civics class? This stuff is usually covered.
As I've observed before, nothing in Heller or McDonald requires registration, either. That is left up to the states, for now. The large majority of states have decided not to require registration and are also shall-issue with regard to carry licenses, both of which are consistent with the cases named.
ReplyDeletedog gone,
ReplyDeleteI'll find references for you about the specific meaning and importance of "the People" in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and post them in another comment. The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens from the government, not guarantee that criminals can do anything and everything.
The Fourth Amendment (protection from unreasonable search and seizure) along with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments limit government actions against citizens before a jury of their peers finds them guilty in a court of law. Remember, we are innocent until proven guilty. Suspicion or hatred is not sufficient for government or law enforcement to run rough-shod over citizens. Once we are convicted felons, then we lose all sorts of, if not all, rights.
Saying it another way, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are protections from "Gestapo tactics" or the cinematic depiction of a rural, backwoods Sheriff that doesn't like "outsiders".
What those amendments do NOT do is empower criminals to bear arms, assemble, free speech, etc.
Now if you are referring to convicted felons after release, that is a topic of a different discussion. I believe someone convicted of a non-violent crime should have full citizenship rights upon "paying their debt to society". I believe someone convicted of serious violent crimes should never be released into society.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteHere is one reference about the legal meaning of "the People" in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in a recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision. The case was:
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
The U.S. Supreme Court states that "'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution ... it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
Criminals are not part of our "national community" and this Supreme Court discussion tells us that the Second Amendment does not apply to criminals.
For reference, I copied and pasted the most relevant part of their decision below:
That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
"It is well established that when the Constitution or Bill of Rights refers to "the People", it means all upstanding citizens of the nation."
ReplyDeleteBullshit.
You and that idiot Azztec Red both assert that the Constitution say what you want it to say. That's Scalia's position, as well. Much like the fundies do with the Wholly Babble he twists the words around to get the meaning he wants and simply ignores anything that doesn't support his position.
I'm in part with Anonymous on this. The Fourth Amendment doesn't protect only criminals; it protects all of us, unless you have no problem with the kinds of abuses we saw during the J. Edgar Hoover days. Or the abuses of all types that have come about after 9/11.
ReplyDeleteWow! anonymous points out that Article I,Section 8,clause 16 addresses the militias.
ReplyDeleteWhat power does it give congress over the militias,anonymous?
The power to arm them?
Couldn't it also neglect to arm the militia?
Greg, please show us where Heller says registration isn't required.What was the holding in the case?
You know what a holding is, don't you,Greg?
Wow,anonymous,you're really funny--What's dicta? What were the facts of the Verdugo-Urquidez case?
Even better,Anonymous,do you like making an idiot of yourself in public?
Please state the facts of Verdugo-Urquidez, the issues of the case, and it's holding.
Of course, greg is with anonymous. Ignorance tends to like to confirm that it is correct.
democommie
ReplyDeleteYou stated:
You [Anonymous] and that idiot Azztec Red both assert that the Constitution say what you want it to say.
I am accurately asserting what the Constitution says, no more, no less. Where someone doubted my statement, I provided a reference from a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
I have spent countless hours learning about the document which is the Supreme Law of our Nation. That includes understanding words whose meanings may have changed slightly over time. It also includes reading other statements and publications from the people who co-authored and endorsed the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Finally, that also includes understanding the historical context within which the Framers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. While I disliked History throughout my education, I found this journey to be quite interesting and enlightening.
How about you? How much time have you invested to learn and understand the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights? What new facts can you bring to light to show that "the People" includes criminals?
Really, anonymous, you are accurately saying what the Second Amendment states?
ReplyDeleteYet,you are omitting the purpose section of the text:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
Are you saying that the purpose is not important to the text?
What did Marbury v.Madison say about constitutional contruction if you spent so much on the topic? Did the case which brought us judicial review say that inconvenient parts of the document could be ignored?
Tell us about your conlaw wisdom anonymous?
Tell us about this neglected section of the Constitution.
One that is almost as neglected as the Third Amendment.
We want you to inform us.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteIf I am wrong and criminals are part of "the People" referenced throughout the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then provide the references.
In addition to an academic approach, tell me from a simple logic standpoint why it would be good for civilization to honor criminals with all of the rights and liberties of citizens?
Civilization by its very definition is the formal pursuit of liberty and cooperation with fellow citizens for the maximum benefit of all citizens. For all time there have been criminals and all civilizations have endeavored to eliminate criminals. To say that criminals (who attack the very fabric of civilization) should retain all rights and liberties of citizens, who have respected everyone and attacked no one, is going against common sense and all of human history.
But somehow you think that criminals retain the right to bear arms. I disagree. What am I missing?
Yes, you are indeed wrong when you say you understand the term "the people"
ReplyDeleteAgain, please state the facts, issue, and holding of verdugo-urquidez.
You have read the case--haven't you?
How many Amendments in the Bill of Rights address the rights of criminal defendants?
If criminals aren't part of the people, why are their rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights?
Laci,
ReplyDeleteI paraphrased the Second Amendment earlier, "... honorable citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for security purposes."
As I stated (and I believe supported thoroughly), that does not extend to criminals.
To understand that paraphrase, simply look at the historical context. The Founding Fathers had just faced and overcome tyrannical English rule. They feared the new government eventually doing the same. And they believed it was critical to guarantee that the new government would never prevent citizens (which does not include criminals) from owning and bearing arms in case the citizens ever had to repeat their recent struggle.
But it doesn't end there. The Founding Fathers also knew that citizens would face other security threats, whether lone rapists, criminal gangs, organized crime, hostile Native Americans, or even foreign armies. Any and all of those threatened the security of a free State as well.
As you should know, the working definition of militia in the late 1700s was any able bodied male citizen between the ages of 15 and 45 or something along those lines. And you should also know there was no organized police force and no standing federal armies. The only people able to secure the State was "the People"! And how could "the People" secure the State (themselves) without arms?
The Founding Fathers published many documents that clearly support my previous points and the paraphrase that I stated. Taken as a whole, there is no other sensible way to understand the Second Amendment.
If you want to debate whether or not that is good for today's society I am in favor of such a debate. But you cannot honestly claim that the Second Amendment has some other meaning. Other definitions leave early Americans unable to fend off armed robbers, animals, etc. Still other definitions about the right to bear arms for Federal military service are equally awkward. Such a construction would be a "safeguard" to insure that the Federal government didn't legislate itself into a situation where their armies had no arms to fight foreign nations. Why would they ever do that? Even if they did, they could promptly repeal such legislation.
YOu believe?
ReplyDeleteWhat if your belief is wrong?
What is the militia as it exists now under United States law? What is the US Code section addressing this?
Saying the unorganised militia is included gets you a D.
Fuck the what the founding father said--what is the current US law on this issue? Please state it.
Also, you continue to fail to provide the facts, issue, and holding of verdugo-urquidez.
You have read the case--haven't you?
Again, How many Amendments in the Bill of Rights address the rights of criminal defendants?
If criminals are not part of the people--why do they have rights given to them under the bill of rights?
Is it because they are pre-existing to the constitution?
Come on,anonymous-=-stop bullshitting me.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth through Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights speak clearly about citizens accused -- BUT NOT YET FOUND GUILTY -- of crimes. To quote the Fifth Amendment,
"... nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
Clearly people can lose life, liberty, and/or property AFTER due process of law.
You are confusing criminal defendants versus criminals and processes of law.
Again, these are safeguards against what we would today call "Gestapo tactics".
REalllyyyy,anonymous!
ReplyDeleteWhat about cruel and unusual punishments?
I think that fits squarely on applying to criminals.
Also,are you saying that criminals and those who have finished their punishment are denied their first amendment rights?
What about recidivists? Are they denied these rights because of that status?
I want to hear you explain this matters to me.
You still haven't answered my questions about what provision in US law covers the militia.
Tell me about Marbury v.Madison.
Please state the facts of Verdugo-Urquidez, the issues of the case, and it's holding.
So far, Anonymous, you appear to know shit about Constitutional law.
Quit the bullshit.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteWhere in Heller is registration required? It may not be unconstitutional, but where is it required. There's a difference between you may do this and you have to do this.
Thanks Laci for my new favorite line.
ReplyDelete"Fuck the what the founding father said"
I've been saying that in roundabout ways for a long time.
Greg, what was the holding in Heller?
ReplyDeleteYou have read Heller haven't you?
I believe you will find that registration is mentioned specifically.
Greg, I'll save you the work. Here's the holding from Heller:
ReplyDeleteIn sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home
How is your comprehension of the English language, Greg?
I've put some words in bold.
Can you see them?
One of them is the word "register".
Does that answer your question?
Are you now going to argue that "register" doesn't mean "register".
Or that we should broadly interpret the word "register"?
BTW,I see that anonymous doesn't have a response to any of my questions.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, do convicted persons have a right to petition under the first amendment?
Come on, anonymous, provide an answer.
Illuminate us with your ignorance!
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteThe word, register, in that ruling was used because D.C. had a registration system in place. Of course, no handgun could be registered that wasn't already on the books past 1976. That was the problem. What the ruling says is that Heller has the right to own a gun and the city must allow him to register it. The language that you quoted does not require a registration system. It merely states that if one already exists, the system can't bar legal owners from complying with it and registering handguns. Show me where the Heller or McDonald decisions require a jurisdiction that doesn't have a registration system to adopt one.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of respect for the Founders of this country. They started something important. It wasn't unique, although it was rare, and it wasn't without precedent, but they brought together ideas in a combination that was new.
Greg, you are so funny?
ReplyDeleteWhat did heller say about "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms"?
Register means exactly that,registration and it does not infringe upon the Second Amendment right created by the Heller-McDonald decision.
Show me where the Heller or McDonald decisions require a jurisdiction that doesn't have a registration system to adopt one.
It doesn't but try to understand what I have just said, greg. I know it's beyond your intellectual level.
respect for the Founders of this country.
No disrepect, but quotes taken out of contexts have no bearing upon the current state of the law. They are a distraction. A red herring.
Greg, if you were as well read as you believe yourself to be, you wouldn't come here and make all the stupid comments that you do.
While Heller does not require registration, it isn't a very "personal right" friendly document. In fact,they disagree with pretty much everything that you say here.
"I paraphrased the Second Amendment earlier, "... honorable citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for security purposes."
ReplyDeleteWrong. You conflated what you read to get to what you want it to say.
I don't do a lot of reading on the law. I think Laci The Dog does enough for both of us. My function is not to reiterate what's already been said by him. My function is to beat morons like you like a pinata in a world full of sticks.
You want to bother me about repeating what's already been laid out there by Laci The Dog? Yeah, that's gonna happen, about the time that you give cogent and compelling answers to the questions asked of you, by him.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteI'll have to resume discussion tomorrow. Here are some of your earlier questions and responses for today:
Laci:
What about cruel and unusual punishments? I think that fits squarely on applying to criminals.
Response:
defer to another time.
Laci:
Also, are you saying that criminals and those who have finished their punishment are denied their first amendment rights? What about recidivists? Are they denied these rights because of that status?
I want to hear you explain this [these] matters to me.
Response:
I will share my personal opinion. I mentioned in another post that a criminal who "paid their debt to society" should have their full liberty and rights restored. I also believe that criminals that commit serious and heinous violent crimes should never be released.
Laci:
You still haven't answered my questions about what provision in US law covers the militia.
Response:
United States Constitution --
Article 1, section 8, clauses 15 and 16 grant Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia"
Militia Act of 1792 --
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
United States Code, Title 10, Section 311 --
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Laci:
Tell me about Marbury v.Madison.
Response:
Marbury versus. Madison clarified/established Judicial review as defined in Article III of the United States Constitution.
Laci:
Please state the facts of Verdugo-Urquidez, the issues of the case, and it's holding.
Response:
You can read the facts and issues of the case at supreme.justia.com/us/494/259/
including their holding and note paragraph (b) which begins to define "the People" as used in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Like I said, we can resume tomorrow.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteMy comment about the Founders was addressed to Mikeb.
You do keep implying that Heller requires registration, but it does not. It does allow such systems to exist, and it doesn't throw out prohibitions on letting criminals own firearms, but it did declare an individual right. That's not bad for now. The burden passes to Congress to pass laws expanding concealed carry and ownership rights.
Regarding quotations from the Founders, I don't put much stock in quotes out of context. I respect the general principles that those men held and operated under. What one or another of them said about firearms is much less important than their idea of individual liberty. That's what I respect.
Greg, Your responses get you a failing grade.
ReplyDeleteyou have done a wonderful job of cutting and pasting,but you haven't demonstrated any understanding of the issues involved.
I want to hear you explain this [these] matters to me.
Greg,do you understand what is going on in this discussion?
Anonymous asserted that:
It is well established that when the Constitution or Bill of Rights refers to "the People", it means all upstanding citizens of the nation. Have you ever noticed that the word "People" is capitalized on those documents?
I have pointed out that criminals have rights under the constitution as well and are part of the "people".
Are you going to continue on with anonymous's silly assertion?
If you are,I repeat my request about stating the facts of Verdugo-Urquidez, the issues of the case, and it's holding.
As for "what provision in US law covers the militia"--you do an excellent job of guessing, but your response shows a definite lack of understanding of the subject.
1) You mention only constitutional provision. What are the militia clauses--the militia is discussed in more than one partof the constitution.
Likewise, you neglected the most important reference in constitutional jurisprudence--The Second Amendment.
That, in and of itself,nets you a fail.
Furthermore,you refer to one paragraph of the Militia Act of 1792. Tell me why this is irrelevant, Greg?
You do mention 10 USC 311, but it's painfully obvious that you don't understand its significance,or why I would ask you about that.
The Militia as it now exists is the National Guard, see Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990). Next, I deal with the unorganised militia in this post:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/asked-and-answered-unorganised.html.
I will recap that:
Being in the "unorganized militia" conveys to you no rights, only the possibility of responsibilities. All it means is that you belong to that class of the militia which has no responsibilities. Being in the unorganized militia allows you to do not a single thing, because only the state and federal governments can create (working together) active militia systems.
Furthermore, your response to:
What did Marbury v.Madison say about constitutional contruction if you spent so much on the topic? Did the case which brought us judicial review say that inconvenient parts of the document could be ignored?
Demonstrates that you did not read the case,let alone understand it. There is something about clauses in the constitution.
Greg, your personal opinion is worth shit--it is without legal grounding.
Unless you can offer a proper legal opinion, I suggest that you keep your poersonal opinions to yourself.
Well,you can give them,but I find them laughable.
If you are a teacher, I hope that you would also fail someone who fails to understand the questions asked. Does not respond to the questions asked. When there is a response, it is superficial and does not demonstrate understanding.
I don't mind cut and paste if you provide something which demonstrates an understanding of a topic, but to cut and paste something which is not relevant to the question asked does not demonstrate an understanding of the topic.
As I said, you fail.
I would prefer not to read your rubbish, Greg, unless you can say something which demonstrates that you have a grasp of the topic.
That is something which you continually fail to do.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI'm not Anonymous. Your most recent comments are directed to what Anonymous wrote, but you used my name. I didn't write those comments. I only comment under my own name.
Greg, if you are not anonymous, why did you respond to my questions to anonymous?
ReplyDeleteThis is further evidence that you have no idea of what is going on here?
Would you like me to speak in Old English (Anglo-Saxon)? Would that help you understand what is going on here?
Cnut cyning gret his arcebiscopas and his leod-biscopas and Þurcyl eorl and ealle his eorlas and ealne his þeodscype, twelfhynde and twyhynde, gehadode and læwede, on Englalande freondlice.And ic cyðe eow, þæt ic wylle beon hold hlaford and unswicende to godes gerihtum and to rihtre woroldlage.
Ic nam me to gemynde þa gewritu and þa word, þe se arcebiscop Lyfing me fram þam papan brohte of Rome, þæt ic scolde æghwær godes lof upp aræran and unriht alecgan and full frið wyrcean be ðære mihte, þe me god syllan wolde.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI was responding to the general conversation. Eh, you're right--I chided you for answering something that I wrote to Mikeb. This is supposed to be an open discussion, so I withdraw that remark.
Now, about the Old English text, what does that speech of King Cnut to the archbishops and so forth about the kind of king that he will be have to do with the discussion here?
Somewhat off topic, but the verification word for this comment was "eerle," which looks a lot like earl--eorlas in Old English. Isn't coincidence fun?
Laci,
ReplyDeleteSo what is your point. State it succinctly.
What I hear you asserting so far is:
(a) Whatever the Founding Fathers said was irrelevant and/or is no longer relevant.
(b) Criminals have all rights and liberties at all times. They have license to use their rights for criminal purposes and injure other citizens. These rights and liberties are available to them, before, during, and after their crimes. They are available to them before during, and after a guilty verdict in a fair trial. Finally, they are available before, during, and after a prison sentence.
I have no idea what you are trying to claim specifically about the Second Amendment. Why don't you offer your paraphrase in modern parlance with any hugely significant qualifications spelled out.
Try rereading the original post, anonymous. I think it's pretty clear what I am trying to say.
ReplyDeleteYou are the one who is clouding the issue, anonymous.
Whatever the Founding Fathers said was irrelevant and/or is no longer relevant.
Yes, it is, and you accept that the Supreme Court chose to ignore the actual text of the Second Amendment.
Criminals have all rights and liberties at all times.
NO, you assert that the term "the People" only applies to law abiding citizens--that is incorrect.
I restate this request:
Wow,anonymous,you're really funny--What's dicta? What were the facts of the Verdugo-Urquidez case?
Please state the facts of Verdugo-Urquidez, the issues of the case, and it's holding.
Your understanding of the term people totally misunderstands the concept.
And, yes, the quotes from the founding fathers are bullshit--they have little relevance to the current state of the law.
But, all this is well beyond your scope--and you make that clear.
I doubt any amount of explanation on my part would clear it up for you.
Greg, I posted that because you are a royal cnut.
ReplyDeleteLaci,
ReplyDeleteI shared my views and I was interested in your views. Instead of a civil exchange of ideas or a cogent description of your understanding, you get belligerent, use profanity, call people names, and present yourself as superior to others.
I have done nothing of the sort but somehow I am an unstable, dangerous person who is a threat to society and your types are the salvation of society.
When you manage to accomplish more than the Founders of our nation -- convincing most of the people of a colony to unite in beliefs and purpose to overthrow the world's superpower and launch a nation that would become the new world superpower -- then I might even find your on-line personality amusing. Until then, I'm not interested in your insults or attitude.
P.S. It might do you some good to read the book "All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten"
Anonymous, the same comments I made to Greg apply to you:
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you admit that you have absolutely no legal training instead of pretending to have knowledge that you obviously lack?
As I have said, whenever I think a trained chimp could do my job, someone like you shows up and show that is a misconception on my part.
Law is an intellectual discipline which requires certain skills, which you lack, Anonymous.
Put it in other terms for you, Anonymous: It's like playing chess.
You are at a level where have no idea of the rules, yet you are trying to take on a chess master.
That is what your attempt at legal reasoning is like.
There are certain disciplines that require training to be able to properly practise them.
That is not elitism, that is fact.
Perhaps as a person who feels that his baseless and ignorant comments are worthy of consideration in light of proper legal practise, you disagree with this.
That is your right, but it is not elitism to say that a profession and its skills are not held by every person.
Anonymous, perhaps it is attempts on your part to perform self-brain surgery which has left you so incapable of cogent thought.
Do I make myself clear to you, Anonymous?
If you think that Law School is like Kindergarten.then I hope that you will attempt to apply to and pass the requirements to receive a law degree.
If you have not done so, then your comments about my education are more ignorant than yours about the law.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteFor someone who claims not be an elitist, you sure have a funny way of showing it. You refute yourself with your insults, name calling, claims that no one else can understand fundamental aspects of law, and the fact that you can't be bothered to make a clear statement without sarcasm and snide remarks.
And you fail to embrace the greatest point of all. Inalienable human rights define the right of people to live free of attack from others -- especially elitists and government. Government does not grant those rights and has no legitimate power to define them or take them away from people that are simply trying to live their lives peacefully. That is what the Founding Fathers stated and that is what everyone supported who founded and fought for the U.S.A. Those values are timeless and that is why so many people support them to this very day.
Judges that claim authority to trample peaceful citizens' inalienable human rights -- under threat of force -- are no better than criminals who use force to trample on citizens.
Go back to the U.K. where you can be a subject of the monarchy. I'll be living with liberty in the U.S.A.
"And you fail to embrace the greatest point of all. Inalienable human rights define the right of people to live free of attack from others -- especially elitists and government."
ReplyDeleteOh, so the SCotUS opinion in Heller McDonald should be ignored by the local gummint in D.C.? Oh, that's probably different. Those judges aren't "trampling" anyone's rights; they're just righting a grievous wrong, imposed on the poor, downtrodden gunzloonz.
You're whaaaaaaaaaaambulance siren is noted.