tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post4427070992094286753..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Seriously--how stupid are gun loons?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-40872955854070695392012-06-25T13:59:41.407+02:002012-06-25T13:59:41.407+02:00if he can't convince at least 5 justices of th...<i>if he can't convince at least 5 justices of the Supreme Court that his opinion is correct, then he will never win a case before the Supreme Court correct? </i><br /><br />Jim, the fallacious thinking present in this statement is amazing.<br /><br />You assume that because five justice, one of whom is biased, Scalia, which also makes the Heller-McDonald decision Suspect, makes it a correct decision that will stand the test of time.<br /><br />Just because five justices have come up with a PoS decision which ignorant fools such as yourself accept because it fits your worldview does not mean it is good law.<br /><br />It only shows that you are not willing to look beyond your beliefs and escape your ignorance.<br /><br />The reason that Dog Gone was deaaling with your responses is that I know that you are ignorant and will only waste my time because you want me to agree with you.<br /><br />But, Jim, you cannot make me agree with you since I know how the game is supposed to be played--which is something that you don't.<br /><br />Repeating lies and misinformation only further reinforces my opinion that you are ignorant and a waste of my time.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-1777993717534398102012-06-25T13:45:48.584+02:002012-06-25T13:45:48.584+02:00BTW, Jime, this post Ignorance is the gunloon sta...BTW, Jime, this post <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/06/ignorance-is-gunloon-state-of-mind.html" rel="nofollow">Ignorance is the gunloon state of mind</a> was writtien about you.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4146735635429764462012-06-25T13:43:36.368+02:002012-06-25T13:43:36.368+02:00No Jim, in the fragment you cite--does it give som...No Jim, in the fragment you cite--does it give some sort of reason that there is "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".<br /><br />More specifically, does it mention hunting, self-defence, robbing banks, committing mass shootings, or any other purpose?<br /><br />You can't assume that something is covered in a law if it is not specifically mentioned.<br /><br />What purpose is specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment?<br /><br />What reason is specifically given for that right in the Second Amendment?<br /><br />That specific reason or purpose is given in the first half:<br /><br />"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"<br /><br />Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex.<br /><br />“It is a basic canon of statutory construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex. This principle is also expressed in the maxim ratio legis est anima: the reason of law is its soul.”<br /><br />Since you are ignorant, Jim, by removing the first half of the Second Amendment Scalia's decision not only judicially amendmended the Second Amendment, but it also voided it.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-541728978704297772012-06-25T06:07:24.855+02:002012-06-25T06:07:24.855+02:00A well regulated militia - which is a state approv...A well regulated militia - which is a state approved or federally approved militia - is the basis for the right to keep and bear arms.<br /><br />How many gun owners do yOU know who belong to such a 'militia'? Our modern equivalent of militia is the National Guard. The Naational Guard maintains our arms for the militia, which are consistent with the army grade weapons --- and for the most part, that is NOT what is legally permitted civilians. Further, our National Guard, as the entity which owns and pays for their equipment, does not usually encourage or allow the people who are serving to take those weapons home with them, because they are not personal property.<br />So if the militia weapons, paid for by the militia and belonging to the militia/National Guard, as distinct from an 18th century militia where people brought a mis-matched collection of their own personal weapons for militia training and other service, YES.<br /><br />So while it is legally possible and conceivable that the National Guard might wish the people enlisted and enrolled to provide personal weapons for their service, in practice that isn't going to happen, because people don't want to pay for their own weapons for government service and because our National Guard wants more professional equipment with much greater uniformity and less variety in their equipment.<br />Again - see any of the prior posts where Laci expounds on how militias operated IN THE 18th Century, versus now. Also, remember the most recent SCOTUS decision ONLY permits home ownership, not public carry -- which would seem to contradict the 'bear' part substantially.<br />What part of this do you not understand?dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-58870160495540214412012-06-25T04:51:08.262+02:002012-06-25T04:51:08.262+02:00"That would be in the first three words of th..."That would be in the first three words of the Amendment that it explicity contradicts you.<br /><br /><br />"A well regulated" contradicts the phrase "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?<br /><br />And yes I do agree that the laws are always changing and the interpretations of the Supreme Court will change as well. I am glad that you agree with my summation.JimFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160096204972745788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-28027311745051048302012-06-22T07:21:11.354+02:002012-06-22T07:21:11.354+02:00A WELL REGULATED MILITIA being necessary to the se...<b>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.[8]</b><br /><br />JimF, where the F appears to be his gradepoint average represented by a letter grade, not his initial wrote:<br /><i>"Although, I would appreciate your showing me where the Second Amendment EXPLICITLY contradicts me"</i> <br /><br />That would be in the first three words of the Amendment that it explicity contradicts you.dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-64820149934200081272012-06-22T07:15:12.864+02:002012-06-22T07:15:12.864+02:00It is that you can have guns at home, under a wide...It is that you can have guns at home, under a wide range of limitations, yes. <br /><br />However, that is a very simplistic summation, and of course, you leave out that important phrase <i>for the moment</i>.<br /><br />Or did you think that the ruling carved it in granite?<br /><br />Even citizens united is being brought back for further review in the Montana case being considered this court term.<br /><br />So YOU are agreeing that the judiciary all the way to the Supreme court is an evolving and changing one of interpretation -- in this case by the conservative activist judges?<br /><br />I'll agree with you, if you agree with that.dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-2441189289027150062012-06-22T05:29:59.127+02:002012-06-22T05:29:59.127+02:00Laci could be the best legal mind in the history o...Laci could be the best legal mind in the history of the world... if he can't convince at least 5 justices of the Supreme Court that his opinion is correct, then he will never win a case before the Supreme Court correct? So in the real world as of today, the 2nd Amendment legally guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms that is subject to some state regulations... which state regulations are allowed has not been definitevly defined. Is that a correct summation of the current state of American law at this point in time?JimFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160096204972745788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-22005411689973325162012-06-22T05:25:26.628+02:002012-06-22T05:25:26.628+02:00"Although, I would appreciate your showing me..."Although, I would appreciate your showing me where the Second Amendment EXPLICITLY contradicts me"<br /><br />"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"JimFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160096204972745788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-15093278364743355032012-06-22T01:11:40.302+02:002012-06-22T01:11:40.302+02:00argumentum ad verecundiam, or the argument from au...argumentum ad verecundiam, or the argument from authority is a logical fallacy. In this case, it works like this:<br /><br />The Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment applies to non-militia purposes, that must be true.<br /><br />But, the problem is that this was a split decision, while the majority did not follow the interpretation that I do, Stevens' dissent <b>DID</b>.<br /><br />So, it's not like I am blowing this out my arse, Jim.<br /><br />This is a very complex issue, which you are missing the subtle nuances. There is far more at issue than whether the Second Amendment addresses non-militia purposes, which it does not textually.<br /><br />Although, I would appreciate your showing me where the Second Amendment EXPLICITLY contradicts me. That is it mentions non-militia purposes such as hunting or self-defence.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-50005709629788943702012-06-22T00:24:44.410+02:002012-06-22T00:24:44.410+02:00Apparently JimF is unaware that not all SCOTUS dec...Apparently JimF is unaware that not all SCOTUS decisions in the past have been 'golden'. <br /><br />Some of them are more manure than diamonds.<br /><br />Those are the decisions that subsequently are overturned, and which do not hodl up well in the longer view of history.<br /><br />While the Supreme Court has a very important and very real authority, they do not make decisions that are equivalent to the Pople speaking ex cathedra to Roman Catholics, they are not infallible.<br /><br />Some Justices have been brilliant; Louis Brandeis comes to mind. Others have been more or less incompetent political hacks. <br /><br />Just because a Supreme Court decision was made does not mean it cannot be undone, and does not mean it is going to hold up in the longer run.<br /><br />Usually before those bad decisions get undone, they go through criticism and critiques by legal opinion.<br /><br />A really smart, well educated person knows the difference, is able to discern good from bad reasoning, regardless of the title or authority someone has.<br /><br />Using your reasoning, every president is equally good, and every presidential policy is equally sound and beneficial, just because someone has been elected... or had the SCOTUS rig their election for them.<br /><br />I doubt you believe that to be the case; authority is important, but it should not be unquestioned.<br /><br />Laci has a first class legal mind, and he reasons very well, and grounds his argument in a good legal foundation.<br /><br />Because you don't know the law, very much like you don't know insurance and fundamental economic principles, you are not able to figure out if a decision is good or bad.<br /><br />Ignorance is a terrible thing; not recognizing the limits imposed on your by your ignorance is an even more terrible problem.dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-75327120601631845162012-06-21T23:58:53.917+02:002012-06-21T23:58:53.917+02:00If it has a better legal basis than the opinion in...If it has a better legal basis than the opinion in question--yes.<br /><br />In fact, if you weren't thick, Jim, you would have understood that my opinion if it is based in fact carries far more weight than a Unanimous court decision that is based upon faulty legal reasoning.<br /><br />That is the nature of my job.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-11702565422845099282012-06-21T23:48:22.247+02:002012-06-21T23:48:22.247+02:00Sorry - are you saying that your legal opinion out...Sorry - are you saying that your legal opinion outweighs that of an actual Supreme Court Justice when handing down a decision of the Supreme Court? Are you one of the actual Supreme Court members Laci? I thought the only people allowed to vote on a decision of the Supreme Court were current Justices. Did I miss a class lesson on who decides the outcome of Supreme Court cases?JimFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160096204972745788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-22024526101462571962012-06-21T23:46:07.025+02:002012-06-21T23:46:07.025+02:00I'll elaborate upon that, just because someone...I'll elaborate upon that, just because someone has gone through the political process of confirmation <b>does not</b> make their opinion any better than mine--especially if their opinions are not made on a proper legal basis.<br /><br />Yes, the Heller-McDonald decisions sound good to you, but you have no idea of the practise of law. That means you don't have a proper basis for judging what a good decision is from one that is bad.<br /><br />Let's take the Dred Scot decision, that was made in violation of Common Law Precedent. In particular, Lord Mansfield issued the opinion in Somersett’s Case (AKA R v Knowles, ex parte Somersett (1772) 20 State Tr 1), which was widely taken to have held that slavery was illegal in England:<br /><br /> <i>The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it’s so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.</i><br /><br />Likewise, Joseph Knight's case found the same thing in Scottish law. The Court of Session emphatically rejected Wedderburn's appeal, ruling that "the dominion assumed over this Negro, under the law of Jamaica, being unjust, could not be supported in this country to any extent: That, therefore, the defender had no right to the Negro’s service for any space of time, nor to send him out of the country against his consent: That the Negro was likewise protected under the act 1701, c.6. from being sent out of the country against his consent."<br /><br />So, just becaus eone has a robe doesn't mean their opinions are legitimate.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-41913700902174745072012-06-21T23:36:13.998+02:002012-06-21T23:36:13.998+02:00No.No.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-45011209952440066242012-06-21T23:13:49.771+02:002012-06-21T23:13:49.771+02:00So just to be clear - you have not made any Suprem...So just to be clear - you have not made any Supreme Court decisions but you have argued cases in front of the Supreme Court. I admit that your legal opinion is good, but in deciding the outcome of Supreme Court cases, the Justices of the Supreme Court opinions outweigh yours - would you not agree?JimFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160096204972745788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-67700089291855975842012-06-21T22:58:11.529+02:002012-06-21T22:58:11.529+02:00I should add that I have been admitted to the bar ...I should add that I have been admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court and practised for over 20 years.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-46694119238480921212012-06-21T22:48:59.197+02:002012-06-21T22:48:59.197+02:00I am admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court in m...I am admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court in my jurisdiction.<br /><br />Yes, Jim, I have written briefs which were actually used in the British House of Lords--the Highest court in the United Kingdom.<br /><br />I have written appellate briefs, which have been incorporated into judicial decisions.<br /><br />I have attended top law schools in the US and UK.<br /><br />So, Jim, yes, my opinions are worthy of consideration--far more than yours.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-10529284525343317872012-06-21T22:36:56.863+02:002012-06-21T22:36:56.863+02:00"Note: posting personal information will get ..."Note: posting personal information will get your comments deleted and you will be banned from posting here."<br /><br />"Straight off, Jim, where did you go to law school and how long have you been practising law?"<br /><br />You trying to get me banned Laci? :pJimFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160096204972745788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-27917162090510923362012-06-21T22:17:40.749+02:002012-06-21T22:17:40.749+02:00Laci - how many years have you served on the Supre...Laci - how many years have you served on the Supreme Court? Please note it is not my opinion on the law that I am saying is correct. I am saying that the opinion of the Supreme Court is correct. So my law credentials are not important. Please post your law experience compared to the Justices of the Supreme Court. Please state how many Supreme Court cases you have decided. Please indicate which judgements you have written for the majority decision and which dissents you have authored. If the answer is none, then I would say your opinion less valid than that of a Supreme Court Justice. And I can say all of that without a single curse word or insult intended to disparage you. Also, feel free to keep talking as I enjoy reading your responses and do not feel it is my place to tell anyone to shut up.JimFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160096204972745788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-28015677459496023842012-06-21T21:20:45.158+02:002012-06-21T21:20:45.158+02:00Straight off, Jim, where did you go to law school ...Straight off, Jim, where did you go to law school and how long have you been practising law?<br /><br />I doubt you have any legal education.<br /><br />So, shut the fuck up with you think this or you think that about the law.<br /><br />You have no fucking idea of what you are talking about and it shows to me.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23023816968108354172012-06-21T21:14:01.428+02:002012-06-21T21:14:01.428+02:00Other than it's your uneducated opinion, of wh...Other than it's your uneducated opinion, of which you are entitled.<br /><br />Seriously, Jim, what basis do you have for saying their opinion is better than mine?<br /><br />Straight off, Jim, you're a fuckwit when it comes to the law--so, I don't give a shit what you think because the toilet paper I wipe my arse with has better opinions than yours.<br /><br />Jim, my opinion on it is far better grounded than yours. Additionally, my criticisms have been echoed by people with better credentials than you have.<br /><br />But, the majorioty opinions in the Heller-McDonald cases are wrong.<br /><br />And if you would shut up and learn something by trying to understand my posts on the decisions, you would see it as well.<br /><br />Although, you tend to be one of those people who don't see what they don't want to see.<br /><br />So, Jim, you are an ignorant fuck. and your opinions don't mean shit.<br /><br />But, I'll let you have a wank by seeing them in print.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-36904722700217786802012-06-21T20:50:58.567+02:002012-06-21T20:50:58.567+02:00"Scalia goes out of his way to say that Mille..."Scalia goes out of his way to say that Miller is not applicable and provides no guidance, which is incorrect in my opinion."<br /><br />I will stick with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. No disrespect intended, but I think their opinion has more weight on what the law of the United States is than your's does.JimFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160096204972745788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-42678372733391101532012-06-21T20:24:32.175+02:002012-06-21T20:24:32.175+02:00Simple question--has the Second Amendment been mod...Simple question--has the Second Amendment been modified since it was adopted?<br /><br />In particular, has there been any change in language since Miller was decided?<br /><br />Failing a showing that there was any change in law which would justify a reinterpretation of the Second Amendment, Miller is controlling.<br /><br />I find that Stevens' dissent in Heller follows the precedent set by the Miller decision.<br /><br />Scalia goes out of his way to say that Miller is not applicable and provides no guidance, which is incorrect in my opinion.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-40955489447590877892012-06-21T20:02:54.737+02:002012-06-21T20:02:54.737+02:00Look, I don't have the time to waste trying to...Look, I don't have the time to waste trying to spoon feed this stuff to you.<br /><br />A court can use the dissent if they find it is far more accurate than the majority opinion. There are two types of legal authority: mandatory and persuasive.<br /><br />Additionally, if the majority opinion is without a legal basis, it can be ignored.<br /><br />In fact, that's one of the wonders of the Heller-McDonald decisions is that a judge doesn't really need to follow precedent.<br /><br />or the law as written.<br /><br />Didn't you get that?<br /><br />I guess you didn't from all your questions.<br /><br />Now, I'll post them, but I don't have time to waste trying to give you an education, Jim.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.com