Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Procrustes Stretched]

because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.

and those were YOUR arms, not something the government kept locked up (although they had those as well).

the colonials would muster with handguns and shotguns?

you prove you still are talking out of your arse

If that's all they had, although most usually had a smoothbore musket or rifle.

Militias were usually called out for local threats from the native Americans, the French and later against threats from radicals like you during Shay's Rebellion

 

[Pop23]

You always could.

Prove you're gay. How can we know you were discriminated against without proof of what you say you are. What exactly is the gay test? That we just have to take your word for it?

And the Love test that proves you couldn't marry the one you loved? Can you link to the State sanctioned love test? That would be a huge help.

If a black man accuses me of discrimination, I have a right that he prove he's black, and he can. If a woman accuses me of gender discrimination, I have a right to ask them to prove their gender.

So I'm sure you can provide proof of your sexuality.

We'll wait.

Not legally we could not....Ironically, for those who are a-feared of gay marriage folks forcing themselves on church, we were married in a church over a decade before we were married legally.

And what is this about having to prove one is gay? Where does THAT come from? Why is it that you suddenly want proof of my sexuality? Are you some kind of sick voyeur?

If gays say they are, and this is a civil right, then just as others (blacks, genders), then why can't we ask the same of you?

Too much to ask?

I'm not following your logic here. SSM is a civil right. But who said you have to prove that you are gay? Have those over the centuries getting OSM'd had to prove they were straight? What kind of test was that?

It is the gay population claiming discrimination. How do we even know "gay" exists? The test please.

No....you misunderstood...the discrimination was in gender....SSM was illegal but OSM was legal....one's gender choice for partner was a point of unConstitutionality by state governments when they restricted one gender vs another. That's been rectified. Hurrah!

nearly all people, regardless of gender, never felt this discrimination. Only a tiny group, gays, thought it was discriminatory. And that groups very existence is that of the question.

How do we test that this "gay" condition even exists? What is the gay test?

If a black accusses me of discrimination, I have the right to ask proof of race. Same with gender.

So the test for gay please.

 

[Skylar]

By who? I've never heard of the 'Nuclear Artillery Race" or any kind of 'Nuclear Artillery Treaty'. Nuclear arms races, nuclear arms treaties....yeah, I've heard of those.

There were privately owned cannon and privately owned warships with cannon during the revolutionary war. So why wouldn't artillery be included in 'arms'?

because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.

Says who?

This is a pretty good definition.

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

And where is this 'common law definition of arms'?

I just gave the basics to you.

The idea is that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and handguns, rifles (semi-automatic included) and shotguns are way way on the "permitted" side of the line.

And the constitution doesn't say any of it. It merely states 'arms'. If we're using a strictly literalist interpretation of the constitution...and the constitution draws no lines on what weapons constitute 'arms', then any such limitation is a matter of interpretation.

Not literalism.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Glad we agree that after Obergefell there is just marriage.

No. Because then the kooks would go after somebody else. Gays can handle it

 

[Skylar]

Not legally we could not....Ironically, for those who are a-feared of gay marriage folks forcing themselves on church, we were married in a church over a decade before we were married legally.

And what is this about having to prove one is gay? Where does THAT come from? Why is it that you suddenly want proof of my sexuality? Are you some kind of sick voyeur?

If gays say they are, and this is a civil right, then just as others (blacks, genders), then why can't we ask the same of you?

Too much to ask?

I'm not following your logic here. SSM is a civil right. But who said you have to prove that you are gay? Have those over the centuries getting OSM'd had to prove they were straight? What kind of test was that?

It is the gay population claiming discrimination. How do we even know "gay" exists? The test please.

No....you misunderstood...the discrimination was in gender....SSM was illegal but OSM was legal....one's gender choice for partner was a point of unConstitutionality by state governments when they restricted one gender vs another. That's been rectified. Hurrah!

nearly all people, regardless of gender, never felt this discrimination. Only a tiny group, gays, thought it was discriminatory. And that groups very existence is that of the question.

How do we test that this "gay" condition even exists? What is the gay test?

'Gay' isn't a requirement of any marriage. Straight or gay. So you're inventing imaginary requirements that neither the law nor any court ruling require.

Your imaginary requirements are legally irrelevant.

 

[Pop23]

I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.

You would think he would be rushing out there to file just to show us all how horrible gay marriage is.

But maybe he is Texan- all hat- no cattle.

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Correct...now there is just "marriage". YAY!

Does this surprise you? I've been saying it for months

Glad we agree that after Obergefell there is just marriage.

There has always been only marriage.

 

[Pop23]

If gays say they are, and this is a civil right, then just as others (blacks, genders), then why can't we ask the same of you?

Too much to ask?

I'm not following your logic here. SSM is a civil right. But who said you have to prove that you are gay? Have those over the centuries getting OSM'd had to prove they were straight? What kind of test was that?

It is the gay population claiming discrimination. How do we even know "gay" exists? The test please.

No....you misunderstood...the discrimination was in gender....SSM was illegal but OSM was legal....one's gender choice for partner was a point of unConstitutionality by state governments when they restricted one gender vs another. That's been rectified. Hurrah!

nearly all people, regardless of gender, never felt this discrimination. Only a tiny group, gays, thought it was discriminatory. And that groups very existence is that of the question.

How do we test that this "gay" condition even exists? What is the gay test?

'Gay' isn't a requirement of any marriage. Straight or gay. So you're inventing imaginary requirements that neither the law nor any court ruling require.

Your imaginary requirements are legally irrelevant.

Strawman noted

 

[martybegan]

because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.

and those were YOUR arms, not something the government kept locked up (although they had those as well).

the colonials would muster with handguns and shotguns?

you prove you still are talking out of your arse

If that's all they had, although most usually had a smoothbore musket or rifle.

Militias were usually called out for local threats from the native Americans, the French and later against threats from radicals like you during Shay's Rebellion

How am I a radical?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

better to be hung up on the actual words of one actual amendment then the interpreted musings of un elected lawyers.

there you go again. Libertarians practice Cafeteria Style Politics with the Constitution. Calling Supreme Court Justices or any other Justices un-elected lawyers shows a willful ignorance and disingenuousness that is astounding. Those un elected lawyers are mentioned not as an amendment, but as one of three branches of government

 

[Pop23]

Glad we agree that after Obergefell there is just marriage.

No. Because then the kooks would go after somebody else. Gays can handle it

There are no other groups that don't have some kind of test to determine that they are who they say they are.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Militias were usually called out for local threats from the native Americans, the French and later against threats from radicals like you during Shay's Rebellion

How am I a radical?

oops!
Reactionary would have been a more fit label.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not following your logic here. SSM is a civil right. But who said you have to prove that you are gay? Have those over the centuries getting OSM'd had to prove they were straight? What kind of test was that?

It is the gay population claiming discrimination. How do we even know "gay" exists? The test please.

No....you misunderstood...the discrimination was in gender....SSM was illegal but OSM was legal....one's gender choice for partner was a point of unConstitutionality by state governments when they restricted one gender vs another. That's been rectified. Hurrah!

nearly all people, regardless of gender, never felt this discrimination. Only a tiny group, gays, thought it was discriminatory. And that groups very existence is that of the question.

How do we test that this "gay" condition even exists? What is the gay test?

'Gay' isn't a requirement of any marriage. Straight or gay. So you're inventing imaginary requirements that neither the law nor any court ruling require.

Your imaginary requirements are legally irrelevant.

Strawman noted

So you admit that the sexuality of an individual is irrelevant to their ability to enter into marriage?

If so, your 'gay test' is likewise legally irrelevant. As it defines a criteria that isn't used to determine eligibility for marriage.

Next fallacy please. This is fun!

 

[martybegan]

because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.

Says who?

This is a pretty good definition.

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

And where is this 'common law definition of arms'?

I just gave the basics to you.

The idea is that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and handguns, rifles (semi-automatic included) and shotguns are way way on the "permitted" side of the line.

And the constitution doesn't say any of it. It merely states 'arms'. If we're using a strictly literalist interpretation of the constitution...and the constitution draws no lines on what weapons constitute 'arms', then any such limitation is a matter of interpretation.

Not literalism.

In that case, then the interpretation has to lean towards more personal freedom and less government control, as "shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear.

I don't want a nuke, or a howitzer, or anthrax, what I want is to be able to get a handgun permit and CCW without having to spend $3,000 and wait 6 months just for the NYPD to say "no" for no other reason than they feel like it.

 

[Skylar]

Glad we agree that after Obergefell there is just marriage.

No. Because then the kooks would go after somebody else. Gays can handle it

There are no other groups that don't have some kind of test to determine that they are who they say they are.

What relevance does your 'group test' have with eligibility to be married?

 

[martybegan]

Militias were usually called out for local threats from the native Americans, the French and later against threats from radicals like you during Shay's Rebellion

How am I a radical?

oops!
Reactionary would have been a more fit label.

If i'm reacting to the drivel being pushed by the modern progressive, I wear that label with honor.

 

[Skylar]

Says who?

This is a pretty good definition.

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

And where is this 'common law definition of arms'?

I just gave the basics to you.

The idea is that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and handguns, rifles (semi-automatic included) and shotguns are way way on the "permitted" side of the line.

And the constitution doesn't say any of it. It merely states 'arms'. If we're using a strictly literalist interpretation of the constitution...and the constitution draws no lines on what weapons constitute 'arms', then any such limitation is a matter of interpretation.

Not literalism.

In that case, then the interpretation has to lean towards more personal freedom and less government control, as "shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear.

Then grenades, nuclear weapons, TOW missiles and shoulder mounted missile launchers that can take down a passenger jet.....available for sale at the local walmart next to the fishing poles and camping tents?

 

[Skylar]

This is a pretty good definition.

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

Peopel!!! Look up Constitution Society and Jon Roland and Texas Libertarian Wack-a-doodles

Libertarian whackos go on about original intent nonsense with arguments only a child could think up. The link above speaks to militias and arms. It argues more about tyranny than about the real threats facing the colonials and early Americans.

Whiskey Rebellion? A militia was called up to put it down. The nuts focus on arms being needed to face down tyranny. They get stuck on the one amendment and like Bible thumpers at bible readings they seek hidden meanings that fit into their mind starved patterns.

Then libertarians affiliated with the Constitution Society practices the Paranoid Style in American Politics. They are laser focused on tyrannies that do not exist.

better to be hung up on the actual words of one actual amendment then the interpreted musings of un elected lawyers.

This is a demonstration of the absurdity of the literalist interpretation, where you can ONLY use the words of the constitution. Void of context, usage, history, or any other source.

Its long since been noted that your perception of the law is based on your assumption that your personal opinion defines every aspect of it. Alas, the law doesn't use your standard.

 

[martybegan]

This is a pretty good definition.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

And where is this 'common law definition of arms'?

I just gave the basics to you.

The idea is that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and handguns, rifles (semi-automatic included) and shotguns are way way on the "permitted" side of the line.

And the constitution doesn't say any of it. It merely states 'arms'. If we're using a strictly literalist interpretation of the constitution...and the constitution draws no lines on what weapons constitute 'arms', then any such limitation is a matter of interpretation.

Not literalism.

In that case, then the interpretation has to lean towards more personal freedom and less government control, as "shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear.

Then grenades, nuclear weapons, TOW missiles and shoulder mounted missile launchers that can take down a passenger jet.....available for sale at the local walmart next to the fishing poles and camping tents?

probably not, but I noticed you ignored my 2nd paragraph.

Tell me, why am I denied the right to carry a handgun by NYC?

 

[martybegan]

This is a pretty good definition.

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

Peopel!!! Look up Constitution Society and Jon Roland and Texas Libertarian Wack-a-doodles

Libertarian whackos go on about original intent nonsense with arguments only a child could think up. The link above speaks to militias and arms. It argues more about tyranny than about the real threats facing the colonials and early Americans.

Whiskey Rebellion? A militia was called up to put it down. The nuts focus on arms being needed to face down tyranny. They get stuck on the one amendment and like Bible thumpers at bible readings they seek hidden meanings that fit into their mind starved patterns.

Then libertarians affiliated with the Constitution Society practices the Paranoid Style in American Politics. They are laser focused on tyrannies that do not exist.

better to be hung up on the actual words of one actual amendment then the interpreted musings of un elected lawyers.

This is a demonstration of the absurdity of the literalist interpretation, where you can ONLY use the words of the constitution. Void of context, usage, history, or any other source.

Its long since been noted that your perception of the law is based on your assumption that your personal opinion defines every aspect of it. Alas, the law doesn't use your standard.

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

 

[Skylar]

And where is this 'common law definition of arms'?

I just gave the basics to you.

The idea is that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and handguns, rifles (semi-automatic included) and shotguns are way way on the "permitted" side of the line.

And the constitution doesn't say any of it. It merely states 'arms'. If we're using a strictly literalist interpretation of the constitution...and the constitution draws no lines on what weapons constitute 'arms', then any such limitation is a matter of interpretation.

Not literalism.

In that case, then the interpretation has to lean towards more personal freedom and less government control, as "shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear.

Then grenades, nuclear weapons, TOW missiles and shoulder mounted missile launchers that can take down a passenger jet.....available for sale at the local walmart next to the fishing poles and camping tents?

probably not, but I noticed you ignored my 2nd paragraph.

Tell me, why am I denied the right to carry a handgun by NYC?

Ask NYC.

And why would it 'probably not' be okay under the constitution for the general public to be sold every kind of arms? I mean, what could possibly go wrong with 20 megaton nuclear weapons for home defense? Or shoulder mounted rocket launchers that can target an airliner?

If we're using the literal interpretation of the constitution, what limits are placed on 'arms'?