Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[Quantum Windbag]

Simply saying SCOTUS says I'm wrong is the fallacy of appeal to authority. ...

Actually, it isn't. It would only be a fallacy if the authority we are citing is not an actual authority on the subject. If I were to quote Pat Robertson as an authority that America is a Christian nation, that would be a false appeal to authority because Pat Robertson is not an authority on the Founding Fathers and early American history. Citing SCOTUS as proof that you are wrong in insisting that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, is actually a valid argument because SCOTUS is an authority on the Constitution.

Okay......seems you are not aware there is more than one application. Saying the ruling is correct on the mere basis of it coming from SCOTUS is bullshit. No different than a referee making a call during a sports game. If he makes a bad call people don't simply agree the ruling was correct merely because the "Authority" on the field said it.

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Lol.......what a fucking waste. You obviously don't comprehend the point.

I'm not speaking to the point. I'm trying to help you out. You want to prove that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and just because it says a thing doesn't make it true. And, you were trying to use examples of previous poorly decided cases to illustrate your point.

I'm just pointing out that in Dred the SCOTUS was more right than they were in Plessy. So you can make your point better. Once you've done that, then maybe I'll argue with you. Actually, I haven't been following what you've been saying so maybe we don't have an argument, but I'm betting we do.

That is why you don't get the point. People are saying the ruling is correct based on nothing more than the outcome in that SCOTUS has spoken. Since they are arguing based on the merits of the ruling it's a moot point to weed out the merits of the Scott v Plessy cases.

So, you want to have a hypothetical argument about whether it's a good idea that people have the right to bear arms as an individual? Basically, whether the Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the law when they decided the case?

OK, I'll bite. You go first, please lay out your reasoning for why you think that the Court was wrong in its interpretation of the law and they could not do what they did. (In as much detail as possible please and I'll respond).

 

[Tech_Esq]

Actually, it isn't. It would only be a fallacy if the authority we are citing is not an actual authority on the subject. If I were to quote Pat Robertson as an authority that America is a Christian nation, that would be a false appeal to authority because Pat Robertson is not an authority on the Founding Fathers and early American history. Citing SCOTUS as proof that you are wrong in insisting that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, is actually a valid argument because SCOTUS is an authority on the Constitution.

Okay......seems you are not aware there is more than one application. Saying the ruling is correct on the mere basis of it coming from SCOTUS is bullshit. No different than a referee making a call during a sports game. If he makes a bad call people don't simply agree the ruling was correct merely because the "Authority" on the field said it.

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

 

[CurveLight]

Actually, it isn't. It would only be a fallacy if the authority we are citing is not an actual authority on the subject. If I were to quote Pat Robertson as an authority that America is a Christian nation, that would be a false appeal to authority because Pat Robertson is not an authority on the Founding Fathers and early American history. Citing SCOTUS as proof that you are wrong in insisting that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, is actually a valid argument because SCOTUS is an authority on the Constitution.

Okay......seems you are not aware there is more than one application. Saying the ruling is correct on the mere basis of it coming from SCOTUS is bullshit. No different than a referee making a call during a sports game. If he makes a bad call people don't simply agree the ruling was correct merely because the "Authority" on the field said it.

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

I have been saying "SCOTUS was wrong because..."

Try to keep up.

 

[The T]

Okay......seems you are not aware there is more than one application. Saying the ruling is correct on the mere basis of it coming from SCOTUS is bullshit. No different than a referee making a call during a sports game. If he makes a bad call people don't simply agree the ruling was correct merely because the "Authority" on the field said it.

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Why not? It's a valid argument.

 

[CurveLight]

Okay......seems you are not aware there is more than one application. Saying the ruling is correct on the mere basis of it coming from SCOTUS is bullshit. No different than a referee making a call during a sports game. If he makes a bad call people don't simply agree the ruling was correct merely because the "Authority" on the field said it.

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Why don't you just say:

"Help me wave my pom poms please?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lol.......what a fucking waste. You obviously don't comprehend the point.

I'm not speaking to the point. I'm trying to help you out. You want to prove that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and just because it says a thing doesn't make it true. And, you were trying to use examples of previous poorly decided cases to illustrate your point.

I'm just pointing out that in Dred the SCOTUS was more right than they were in Plessy. So you can make your point better. Once you've done that, then maybe I'll argue with you. Actually, I haven't been following what you've been saying so maybe we don't have an argument, but I'm betting we do.

That is why you don't get the point. People are saying the ruling is correct based on nothing more than the outcome in that SCOTUS has spoken. Since they are not arguing based on the merits of the ruling it's a moot point to weed out the merits of the Scott v Plessy cases.

I think the outcome is right, but I think they used the wrong legal logic to get there. I also think the second amendment applies to an individual right to bear arms, not a collective one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay......seems you are not aware there is more than one application. Saying the ruling is correct on the mere basis of it coming from SCOTUS is bullshit. No different than a referee making a call during a sports game. If he makes a bad call people don't simply agree the ruling was correct merely because the "Authority" on the field said it.

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

I have been saying "SCOTUS was wrong because..."

Try to keep up.

Yes you have, but not consistently.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Why don't you just say:

"Help me wave my pom poms please?"

Help me wave my pom poms please.

Now where's your legal argument? Still waiting.

 

[The T]

I'm not speaking to the point. I'm trying to help you out. You want to prove that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and just because it says a thing doesn't make it true. And, you were trying to use examples of previous poorly decided cases to illustrate your point.

I'm just pointing out that in Dred the SCOTUS was more right than they were in Plessy. So you can make your point better. Once you've done that, then maybe I'll argue with you. Actually, I haven't been following what you've been saying so maybe we don't have an argument, but I'm betting we do.

That is why you don't get the point. People are saying the ruling is correct based on nothing more than the outcome in that SCOTUS has spoken. Since they are not arguing based on the merits of the ruling it's a moot point to weed out the merits of the Scott v Plessy cases.

I think the outcome is right, but I think they used the wrong legal logic to get there. I also think the second amendment applies to an individual right to bear arms, not a collective one.

Many of the signers of the Constitution pre and post ratification had the same comment(s). You are correct.

 

[CurveLight]

Okay......seems you are not aware there is more than one application. Saying the ruling is correct on the mere basis of it coming from SCOTUS is bullshit. No different than a referee making a call during a sports game. If he makes a bad call people don't simply agree the ruling was correct merely because the "Authority" on the field said it.

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Why don't you just say:

"Help me wave my pom poms please?"

Help me wave my pom poms please.

Now where's your legal argument? Still waiting.

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

 

[The T]

Nice try, but that is not what I am saying.

You claim that the only correct way to interpret the 2nd amendment is that it applies to militias, and not to individuals. I counter with the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that actually settles the argument. If you want to argue that SCOTUS is wrong then you need to change your argument from "The second means this" to "SCOTUS was wrong because..." As long as you insist on making the argument about what the amendment means, I can appeal to SCOTUS as an authority that you are incorrect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison anyway. Speaking of writs of Mandamus why don't the attorneys general in the states file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the border?

Ooops, sorry got carried away....nobody answer that.

Why don't you just say:

"Help me wave my pom poms please?"

Help me wave my pom poms please.

Now where's your legal argument? Still waiting.

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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. ”


What is the purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

The Second Amendment was NOT re-written. The SCOTUS merely affirmed the meaning, and bolstered it to it's origionalist intent.

NICE TRY.

 

[daveman]

Holy shit you're stoopid. I've been explaining my position and if you whiny brats paid attention you would see that. Naw.....stick to your crying....it's what you know best.

" I've been explaining my position" = "...and for proof, I offer my assertion that it is what I say it is!"

daveman defines what he does himself with the remarks above. Hypocritically, I might add.

Are you ever going to actually DO anything to merit that arrogance?

 

[daveman]

You just keep proving gun lovers are the dumbest mother fuckers. None of your bitch buddies even had the balls to point out you don't know what intellectual dishonesty means.

Curious: What makes you more an expert in the Constitution than SCOTUS?

Ask yourself that question, daveman.

Okay. "Nothing. I am not more an expert in the Constitution than SCOTUS."

I'm curious what you thought that was supposed to accomplish, since I agree with the decision...? Are you going to tell me I'm not qualified to agree?

 

[daveman]

RGS, I agree with you, son. The far left and the far right are the ones screaming here. One group thinks it can have any type of weapon it wants (fools), and the other group is in la la land about guns and about human nature.

And, yeah, daveman thinks he understands the constitution. Not.

What makes you a Constitutional expert? Just because you say so?

 

[daveman]

Holy shit you're stoopid. I've been explaining my position and if you whiny brats paid attention you would see that. Naw.....stick to your crying....it's what you know best.

" I've been explaining my position" = "...and for proof, I offer my assertion that it is what I say it is!"

I could waste the time in quoting all my posts where I've explained my position but it would not stop you from being dishonest.

No dishonesty here. You've explained your positions, but all you have to back them up is your say so. Nothing else.

I don't know where you usually hang out on the internet, but they've done you no favors by unquestionably and automatically accepting everything you say.

 

[daveman]

Curve, you are wrong.

Get over it, get on with your life.

Whatever you say dave......

I've said you're wrong. I never said get on with your life.


I believe you were saying something about honesty...?

 

[daveman]

Yawn. Will ***** like you ever get tired of ignoring posts by nothing but name calling? I'm guessing.......no.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . and daveman demonstrates his dramedy.

daveman, when you make an honest argument with evidence (that excludes your opinion), then we can go from there. Oh, by the way, don't use the wacko libertarian sites and think tanks. Try using some objective unbiased material, then use your ability to discuss. No more talking points, please.

 

[daveman]

. . . and daveman demonstrates his dramedy.

daveman, when you make an honest argument with evidence (that excludes your opinion), then we can go from there. Oh, by the way, don't use the wacko libertarian sites and think tanks. Try using some objective unbiased material, then use your ability to discuss. No more talking points, please.

You're a funny little person. You think you can order me around.

But you know, I've got a GREAT source: The Supreme Court of the United States.

Now, remind us all again of your qualifications?