A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[jillian]

That'd be the Second Amendment, which someone who laughably pretends to be a lawyer should know.

"Shall not be infringed"? That phrase ring a bell at all, or did they not teach Constitutional Law in Internet Faux Lawyer classes?

Perhaps you could tell me where - ANYWHERE - in the Constitution it says, "Leftist chickenshit twats get to decide the definition of 'reasonable' for everyone else".



I'd suggest if you want to impress us with what the CONSTITUTION allows and requires, you try actually citing the Constitution for once in your pretend Internet law career. Telling us that "such-and-so court decision says so" really only translates to "OF COURSE the Constitution says nothing of the sort, and we knew we couldn't get people to agree with us, so we just wiped our asses on that thing and did what we pleased."

Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out that disingenuous "Constitution-without-any-Constitution" arguments like yours are EXACTLY why there's an argument in the first place?

Make an argument that matters to someone other than you, or stop wasting everyone's time.

scalia disagrees with you.

you might try reading heller.

but wait, i'm sure you think you know more than him and all the other justices, too.

I disagree with Scalia.

Come to think of it, so do you.

Which one of us has more credibility at the moment?

we disagree with scalia for different reasons.

but heller IS the law and I always acknowledge that.

but cesspit didn't say she disagrees with scalia, did she. she just shrieked and melted down.

so in answer to your question, i'd say i can't speak for your credibility. but i know mine is intact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I certainly don't remember having ever delegated to the federal government the authority to ignore my basic civil rights. Pretty sure the social contract I signed on to involved the federal government functioning as a servant of ME, not the other way around.

Some people believe that they have the authority to decide to give up your rights.

A brilliant man once said that even I do not have the authority to give up my freedom.

I wish people would pay more attention to that man.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

scalia disagrees with you.

you might try reading heller.

but wait, i'm sure you think you know more than him and all the other justices, too.

I disagree with Scalia.

Come to think of it, so do you.

Which one of us has more credibility at the moment?

we disagree with scalia for different reasons.

but heller IS the law and I always acknowledge that.

but cesspit didn't say she disagrees with scalia, did she. she just shrieked and melted down.

so in answer to your question, i'd say i can't speak for your credibility. but i know mine is intact.

Feel free to point out where I said it isn't the law. The difference Is I will never use a law I disagree with in an attempt to win an argument I cannot win with logic.

 

[jillian]

I disagree with Scalia.

Come to think of it, so do you.

Which one of us has more credibility at the moment?

we disagree with scalia for different reasons.

but heller IS the law and I always acknowledge that.

but cesspit didn't say she disagrees with scalia, did she. she just shrieked and melted down.

so in answer to your question, i'd say i can't speak for your credibility. but i know mine is intact.

Feel free to point out where I said it isn't the law. The difference Is I will never use a law I disagree with in an attempt to win an argument I cannot win with logic.

that's silly. if someone incorrectly states the law, whether i agree with the law or not, i have every right to accurately set forth the facts. it isn't logical to allow someone blowhard to spout nonsense just because i don't particularly like the case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The federal government does not have the authority to tell anyone what to do, period. The reason for that is pretty simple, the only authority the government has comes from the consent of the people it governs. When it has to resort to using force it loses consent, and thus all legitimate authority over those it uses force upon. The only reason we have a judiciary is to prevent the government from losing its authority by preventing it from using force on anyone who is not in armed rebellion against it.

Unfortunately, everyone forgot to read the Declaration of Independence, and I am forced to deal with the government idiots like you want to use to bring everyone into line with your idiotic concepts. Feel free to spout and posture, it just makes me look even more intelligent than I am.

You really are an idiot. The federal government has the authority to tell people what to do because the people delegate that authority to the federal government.

Stop talking.

The federal government has the authority to act within its enumerated powers and it never has the authority to violate our inalienable rights.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied; acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

The courts attempt to defer to Congress, and refrain from invalidating acts of Congress as such acts represent the will of the people.

The courts are ultimately responsible, however, to the rule of law, and when the people act in an un-Constitutional manner, as expressed by Congress, the courts are compelled to invalidate those measure offensive to the Constitution.

This policy is also applicable to states and other jurisdictions via incorporation doctrine.

No rights – perceived ‘inalienable’ or not – are absolute, including the rights enshrined by the Second Amendment. Government attempts to balance the interests of the state with that of the individual; laws deemed by the courts to be burdensome to the exercising of those rights are in general invalidated.

The burden of proof lies with the state to justify the limiting or preemption of a given right.

State and Federal courts have upheld as Constitutional a number of laws regulating gun ownership, including waiting periods, licensing requirements, and restrictions on those convicted of crimes:

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Post-Heller-Summary-9.1.12.pdf

Consequently the government indeed has the authority to limit Second Amendment rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.

Where does it say it is appropriate?

Supreme Court cases?

And where are "Supreme Court cases" IN THE CONSTITUTION? Did you not understand the question, or do you really think "whatever the judges decide THIS year" is an actual part of the actual Constitution?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That'd be the Second Amendment, which someone who laughably pretends to be a lawyer should know.

"Shall not be infringed"? That phrase ring a bell at all, or did they not teach Constitutional Law in Internet Faux Lawyer classes?

Perhaps you could tell me where - ANYWHERE - in the Constitution it says, "Leftist chickenshit twats get to decide the definition of 'reasonable' for everyone else".



I'd suggest if you want to impress us with what the CONSTITUTION allows and requires, you try actually citing the Constitution for once in your pretend Internet law career. Telling us that "such-and-so court decision says so" really only translates to "OF COURSE the Constitution says nothing of the sort, and we knew we couldn't get people to agree with us, so we just wiped our asses on that thing and did what we pleased."

Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out that disingenuous "Constitution-without-any-Constitution" arguments like yours are EXACTLY why there's an argument in the first place?

Make an argument that matters to someone other than you, or stop wasting everyone's time.

scalia disagrees with you.

you might try reading heller.

but wait, i'm sure you think you know more than him and all the other justices, too.

cesspit... who fancies herself more knowledgeable about the constitution than any of our justices of the supreme court had no answer to the above..

so instead ...

Hi, you have received -387 reputation points from Cecilie1200.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Name-dropper politics: I\'m too stupid to think for myself, so I must find someone to do it for me, and WORSHIP them! I\'m not a leftist, though, so I don\'t work that way. You\'ll have to find an ACTUAL argument.

Regards,
Cecilie1200

wouldn't someone of even average intelligence know that heller was the case determining second amendment rights?

wouldn't someone of even average intelligence know that antonin scalia wrote the opinion of the court in that case?

so wouldn't someone of even average intelligence understand that citing to the lead case on the subject and the jurist who wrote that decision IS the argument?

what a psychotic loon.

Gosh, it really means something to have someone rant and rave about how "psychotic" I am . . . right after she got done revenge-negging me like the petty juvenile she is. You might as well wear a sign that says, "I'm meaningless, and I'm angry about it!"



It must be the worst experience ever to look in the bathroom mirror every morning and see that you're still you, Jillian. I'd feel really bad for you . . . if I wasn't too busy enjoying my schadenfreude.

Meanwhile, I still don't view every word Antonin Scalia wrote or said as gospel carved in stone, and nothing you say is going to make me piss-stupid like you so that I will start blindly worshipping people the way you do, and being unable to form my own opinions the way you are.

Once again, you are left without an argument, and once again, you are my jester and fool.

Same time tomorrow?

 

[Cecilie1200]

scalia disagrees with you.

you might try reading heller.

but wait, i'm sure you think you know more than him and all the other justices, too.

I disagree with Scalia.

Come to think of it, so do you.

Which one of us has more credibility at the moment?

we disagree with scalia for different reasons.

but heller IS the law and I always acknowledge that.

but cesspit didn't say she disagrees with scalia, did she. she just shrieked and melted down.

so in answer to your question, i'd say i can't speak for your credibility. but i know mine is intact.

"Shrieked and melted down" - translation: disagreed with Scalia and refused to lick his feet the way I do people on the left!

Since your "credibility" is based on nothing more than "I disagree with all people from the political right at all times because they should not have the right to not be leftists", it's not hard to maintain it intact.

Only you would view that sort of consistency as something to be proud of . . . but then, for YOU it actually IS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some people believe that they have the authority to decide to give up your rights.

A brilliant man once said that even I do not have the authority to give up my freedom.

I wish people would pay more attention to that man.

Brilliant as he was, he was actually wrong about a lot, because his premises were often unsound. Nevertheless, he was whole orders of magnitude above the dreck that constitutes political opposition these days.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Were they disquialified from purchasing/ownership/posession by federal law?

Due Process.

If people are as disturbed as Cho and Laughtner were, then no, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, especially if they are found to be mentally deficient somehow by a certified psychologist.

Here is a fact that might get you to rethink your position, it seems that psychiatrists can only predict violence about 30% of the time. That means they get it wrong 70% of the time, which effectively means you want to bar 70% of the people who are not going to go off from owning guns, while simultaneously allowing 70% of the people who will go off to own guns. That seems pretty stupid to me, but I can actually think.

Interesting...........................you and the M14 shooter agree that even though the predictions are off, EVERYONE should be allowed to have a gun.

Maybe Karma is going to include the both of you in the 30 percent.

I hope it happens, because you don't really seem to care.

 

[daveman]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

I am opposed to Voter ID and gun registration.

I believe in voter registration and gun buyer registration. Pre-register to exercise either of those rights, so all the vetting is done ahead of time to stop dead illegal aliens shooting up the polling place.

BLARRRRG!!!

Jesus, that G5000 might be onto something!!!

You're kinda half right. If you pre-register to buy weapons, you still have to show ID at the time of purchase to prove you're the guy who registered.

But if you pre-register to vote and don't have to show ID at the poll, there's no way of knowing that the person who registered is the person who's voting.

 

[daveman]

Say what you like, just dont whine if you get trouble.

Meanwhile, please state your opinion on my application of your logic to the 1st.

huh? i thought i just did?
Freedom of speech is an imaginary thing you think is real. We have certain limits on freedom of speech just like we do with guns.

Again this is a very simple concept. I understand your opinion. You are ok with background checks but don't feel gunlocks or even maybe cases are something that must be mandatory in owning a gun in your home.

Well our system is designed to allow you to get like minded people and vote for these regulations. If you can't get enough and the other side thinks its a legit thing to have. Well then you are shit out of luck. You can either comply or move to a state ( if there is one if this isnt federal ) that doesnt have these regulations.

The point is in this state with the Gunlocks, you are still getting your gun. Your right hasnt been taken away at all. You just have to own an extra piece of hardware for it. The choice is up to you.

Ridiculous argument, just like the one stating ammunition should be heavily taxed. "You can own a gun -- you just can't use it."

 

[Bigfoot]

Gunlocks

Heh, that's the first thing that goes in the trash can when I open the box.

 

[daveman]

That was an artful dodge of the question. Let's try again:

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

Your premise is that voting and buying a gun are the same, so unless your as inconsistent as the people you're accusing of inconsistency,

you should want everyone to have a background check EACH TIME THEY VOTE.

You have already said you support background checks for EACH TIME SOMEONE BUYS A GUN.

Why aren't you being consistent?

It's funny how you think you're so clever.

Whoever told you you were did you no favor.

But continue your flailing. It's quite amusing.

We do background checks when people purchase guns because we are intending to deny at least certain people the ability to legally do so.

Are NYC and his leftist comrades planning to allow us to deny the ability to vote to certain people? Because it was my impression that they were virulently opposed to such an idea, which means background checks for voting would be unnecessary. Just a simple ID would work fine.

If, on the other hand, they are actually prepared to allow us to withhold voting privileges from certain people under certain circumstances, then I feel sure that we could reach an accommodation about doing background checks in order to vote.

Leftist "logic":

The right to vote is absolute. There can be no restrictions on it, including making sure the voter is legally allowed to vote.

The right to own firearms is not absolute. We can put so many restrictions on it that, even if you're actually allowed to have a weapon, you won't be able to use it.

 

[daveman]

Reagan wanted a ban on assault weapons, Scalia said of course you could limit the kind of firearms...

Both of these statements are lies.
I love it when anti-gun loons have to lie to make a point.

I also don't give a fuck even if they DID say it. As I keep pointing out, engaging in "name-dropper" or "celebrity" politics is a hallmark of leftists, who insist on venerating and worshipping their politicians, rather than merely admiring or respecting them. Thus, they are incapable of simply saying, "I like the guy, but I disagree with him sometimes". To them, "So and so said it" is the same as saying, "The Pope said it" to a Catholic.

Kinda funny, when you consider how much leftists hate religion.

Franco really expects us to say, "Oh, Reagan supported it? It must be okay, then!!"

Leftists can't conceive that conservatives can think for themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If people are as disturbed as Cho and Laughtner were, then no, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, especially if they are found to be mentally deficient somehow by a certified psychologist.

Here is a fact that might get you to rethink your position, it seems that psychiatrists can only predict violence about 30% of the time. That means they get it wrong 70% of the time, which effectively means you want to bar 70% of the people who are not going to go off from owning guns, while simultaneously allowing 70% of the people who will go off to own guns. That seems pretty stupid to me, but I can actually think.

Interesting...........................you and the M14 shooter agree that even though the predictions are off, EVERYONE should be allowed to have a gun.

This is a lie, as you know I have said no such thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Say what you like, just dont whine if you get trouble.

Meanwhile, please state your opinion on my application of your logic to the 1st.

huh? i thought i just did?
Freedom of speech is an imaginary thing you think is real. We have certain limits on freedom of speech just like we do with guns.

What limits do we have on the freedom of speech?
Why do we have those limits?
How does that reason translate to the limits on guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

huh? i thought i just did?
Freedom of speech is an imaginary thing you think is real. We have certain limits on freedom of speech just like we do with guns.

What limits do we have on the freedom of speech?
Why do we have those limits?
How does that reason translate to the limits on guns?

fire in a crowded room.
Threatening someone with death.

IOW, when the exercise of the right causes of harm, or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Does simple posession/ownership of a firearm cause harm?
Does simple posession/ownership of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

Free speech zones for the public during conventions etc.
Controlled Protest marches where you have to protest down a certain street or time.

IOW, time, place and manner restrcitions when the right is exercised on public property.
How does this relate to simple ownership/posession of a firearm?

 

[Dr Grump]

scalia disagrees with you.

you might try reading heller.

but wait, i'm sure you think you know more than him and all the other justices, too.

cesspit... who fancies herself more knowledgeable about the constitution than any of our justices of the supreme court had no answer to the above..

so instead ...

Hi, you have received -387 reputation points from Cecilie1200.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Name-dropper politics: I\'m too stupid to think for myself, so I must find someone to do it for me, and WORSHIP them! I\'m not a leftist, though, so I don\'t work that way. You\'ll have to find an ACTUAL argument.

Regards,
Cecilie1200

wouldn't someone of even average intelligence know that heller was the case determining second amendment rights?

wouldn't someone of even average intelligence know that antonin scalia wrote the opinion of the court in that case?

so wouldn't someone of even average intelligence understand that citing to the lead case on the subject and the jurist who wrote that decision IS the argument?

what a psychotic loon.

Gosh, it really means something to have someone rant and rave about how "psychotic" I am . . . right after she got done revenge-negging me like the petty juvenile she is. You might as well wear a sign that says, "I'm meaningless, and I'm angry about it!"



It must be the worst experience ever to look in the bathroom mirror every morning and see that you're still you, Jillian. I'd feel really bad for you . . . if I wasn't too busy enjoying my schadenfreude.

Meanwhile, I still don't view every word Antonin Scalia wrote or said as gospel carved in stone, and nothing you say is going to make me piss-stupid like you so that I will start blindly worshipping people the way you do, and being unable to form my own opinions the way you are.

Once again, you are left without an argument, and once again, you are my jester and fool.

Same time tomorrow?

Oh, more meltdown by the Cesspit. If you had any class (and you don't), this is the part where you slink off quitely and lick your wounds after having your arse handed to you on a plate. Check out the case law cited, then come back and argue it.
Going "I'm right because you're a left-wing loon" doesn't win an argument. Makes you look psychotic and is the least of your probs....seriously. Get help..

Edit: Oh, and FYI, Jillian is no fan of Scalia.... There goes your 'worship' strawman right out the window, along with the 0.000000000001 percent of credibility you had left...

 

[jillian]

Gosh, it really means something to have someone rant and rave about how "psychotic" I am . . . right after she got done revenge-negging me like the petty juvenile she is. You might as well wear a sign that says, "I'm meaningless, and I'm angry about it!"

is that the way a self-professed dominatrix gets over having been bitch slapped? why would you think i wouldn't neg you back for failing to offer an cogent response to having been advised that heller is the law of the land. get over it. sometimes even dominatrixes get owned, cesspit.

It must be the worst experience ever to look in the bathroom mirror every morning and see that you're still you, Jillian. I'd feel really bad for you . . . if I wasn't too busy enjoying my schadenfreude.

i think you have that backwards. thankfully, i enjoy the heck out of my life and don't spend it bullying other people for money. isn't that lovely?

Meanwhile, I still don't view every word Antonin Scalia wrote or said as gospel carved in stone, and nothing you say is going to make me piss-stupid like you so that I will start blindly worshipping people the way you do, and being unable to form my own opinions the way you are.

i disagree with most of what scalia says. it doesn't mean heller isn't law of the land. your "opinion" as to the constitution is irrelevant when we are discussing what the law actually "is". and if you had anything to say, your response wouldn't have been to rant and rave and drool all over your keyboard. it would have been to say what you disagree with about heller and scalia's opinion (which is pretty much the far right end of the spectrum, so if i were you, i'd get over any possibility of the law being moved any further right).

Once again, you are left without an argument, and once again, you are my jester and fool.

Same time tomorrow?

amusingly, you were, last night, and now, the one without any argument.

see how it works when a dominatix gets her butt kicked mistress cesspit.

you're welcome.

now go whip someone to make yourself feel better about yourself.