Our national cluelessness begs the question...it does not 'beg the question'. It makes one wonder. Incorrect uses of language cause loss of credibility.
So let's take 5 thru 10... why do you have a problem with them? What bullshirts are they based on?
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; etc...'
Since you are against them, are you saying you are for bad mouthing your mom and dad, killing people, sleeping around, stealing and bringing false witness and stealing from your neighbors?
That's how this works isn't it... if your not for it you must be the exact opposite and promote the exact opposite. So your saying you are a murderer and thief?
I like how you try and redefine original intent. Nice try, care to try again?
Individual opinions from retired justices don't matter. It's how the court as a whole rules. So why don't they matter? Because their opinions are not enforceable by the rule of law. Their opinion is like yours, Worthless.
Mick's never-ending babble is exceeded only by his density. Rather than relying on opinions that mean nothing, how about we look at the original intent of some of the people who were actually behind the Bill of Rights:
"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (George Mason).
"The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams).
"They relate first to private rights." (James Madison, commenting on the entire Bill of Rights).
So, Mick, I could give two shits what Retired Justice Stevens' opinion on the matter is. If you actually want the truth (which I strongly doubt...you know, with you being a liberal and all), maybe consider actually taking into account the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Do us a favor, Mick, and just keep out of arguments you are clearly unprepared for.
Sorry, Gun Worshipers, I got plenty of Jurists and historians in my corner. Examples: 1.Retired Chief Justice Burger remarked that the 2nd Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American Public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." 2. Retired Justice Stevens, "District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v Chicago were contrary to the intent and historical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment." And the list is long, Knuckle Dragging, Knuckle Heads. In any case Gun Use Restrictions should be controlled by State Legislatures, not Judges.
The "militia" in the 2nd Amendment has evolved into a Standing, full time, Army which doesn't ordinarily need to keep it's military weapons at home.
Here's something that may help you understand the 2nd Amendment better... define the term Militia in the context of the founding fathers reference in the Bill of Rights.
Of course Mick is mistaken and ill-informed, he's a liberal and liberals are wrong about most everything.....that's just a given. Though I would have chosen much more colorful terms to describe how I feel about liberals, I can live with simply mistaken and ill-informed.
Glad to see that you switched brands of coffee... now let's talk.
First, what you believe is irrelevant to this conversation, what I believe is irrelevant... what is important here is not only original intent, but how the current court system see and rules on the issue at hand.
So..let's start with, D.C. v Heller the Supreme Court (2008) firmly established the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as they had in Cruikshank and Dred Scott.
If what you say is true Mick then the Supreme court got it wrong and the right to bear arms would NOT be considered an individual right, but they got it right AND they have ruled.
Please see my earlier post that you are ignoring, not my words, but judicial law that has been set. Again, not by me, but by the court system.
In addition to that, the Federal Constitution and the bill of rights were based on the what the original 13 colonies or states were using as law, and the Federal Government has NO business in states rights issue's... a quick look at a few states Right to Bear Arms laws, yields the following:
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged;
Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.
I can go on listing more examples if you would like, but the clear interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL not be infringed. Period.
If, and I do mean If the 2nd Amendment were not referring to individual rights, then one would also have to assume that the other 9 items in the Bill of Rights were also not referring to individual rights but collective rights. It has long been viewed by the courts that this is NOT the case.
So Mick, you are mistaken and ill informed. The 2nd Amendment is not about being in a militia.
1. What the 2nd Amendment says: "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." 2. What the 2nd Amendment means: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed." 3. A massive fraud has been perpetrated by paranoid, gun worshiping zealots against the real meaning of the 2nd amendment.
I think this may be the most brilliant op-ed I have ever read. Thanks, Mr. Rember.
Name calling. That's all you got? Nice, I'm impressed, that was actually 2 sentences.
Most of us don't really care about what you chose to watch on the internet, it's your right to do whatever you want, but really, we don't need to hear about your fantasy's.
So just so everyone is clear, Mick believe's that sports injuries are the fault of those that carry guns. Hmm... Mick, you must be from Wash or Colorado, where you can legally smoke weed. Again not that I mind, it's kind of amusing listening to your musings.
That's right, can't respond intelligently to facts about how the supreme court actually ruled, and about the history of America so you resort to name calling.
The last quote was from founding fathers, I didn't make it up. But whatever Mick.
Anyone else care to play? Seems like Mick has just about run out of words for the day.
Warning July 1st is coming, better batten down the hatches and stay away from University's, wouldn't want to be around a campus where nothing happens.
Sorry, Nitwit, you're confusing "History" with Religious Ideology.
You need to make a video of yourself costumed as a reptile, making love to your 45 and put it on you tube. That would be hilarious.
What's wrong with Biblical Law???? The same thing that is wrong with Sharia Law or Hindu Scriptural Law, or Buddhist Law, or Talmudic Law. In a secular democracy like the U.S. each person has the freedom to choose any religious dogma or reject any religious dogma. The state definitely can't be run by the church. But I do agree with you on one thing Anthropogenic Global Warming is not based on Science. Its based on Bullshit.
"Its the reason the Right exists in the first place."
Can't let that one go... the Bill of Rights does not GRANT anyone anything, it PROTECTS the rights given to us by nature.
As the Declaration of Independence asserts, natural (or “inalienable”) rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Founders believed that it is and was an important purpose of government to protect peoples’ natural rights.
Might go back and try US History again, I think you failed.
It's after 8:00 PM, so try not to confuse Mick with facts.....his next dose of Geritol probably won't kick-in until morning.
Mick, your making up your own facts and are lying... these are not my words or facts, these are from the US SUPREME COURT, and are current law and precedence. You don't get to make up your own facts.
D.C. v Heller the Supreme Court (2008) firmly established the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as they had in Cruikshank and Dred Scott.
In McDonald v Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court concluded the right is incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.
Then you have in 22 of the 27 instances where the Supreme Court mentions the Second Amendment, they quote the rights clause and not the justification clause.
Then you have to explain the U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, where they ruled “We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training” and “We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment”
Mick you are an idiot, blame everything on gun worshipers... you need to change brands of coffee.
Money... that's what drives it... profession football pays a lot of money and all the kids know that they could get hurt, but trade that for the possibility of making big money.
They view it as the lottery, another state funded scam to steal money from the poor.
© 2014 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation