1st. Aaron Alexis then Attacks on the 2nd Amendment

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
The example I used concerning Benjamin Franklin, was of him raising and arming a militia as a private citizen before any federal gov't existed, against the expressed wishes of the colonial gov't.

You didn't mention that. It is an obscure point, but I get what you're saying. That doesn't change my position. It points out a motive for enacting the 2nd. Because of Franklin's experience the politicians realized there was an issue. That supports my position that the purpose of the 2nd is to prevent a state from encroaching on the ability of the feds to raise a militia.

Exactly what part of "the right of the people" do you find so difficult to understand????

None at all. We are interpreting legislation. What is at issue is what the law actually says and how the courts have interpreted it. The rights any person might want are irrelevant unless they can be supported by those two factors. Your analysis points out that a state interfering with the raising of a militia had happened before the 2nd was written. It is logical that steps would be taken to prevent that issue from repeating itself.

Once again, don't be obtuse....the weapons protected are weapons for personal use, that the bearer uses and trains himself to use with skill (which, btw, is the meaning of "well regulated" in the parlance of the day) Nukes are not personal weapons, and by definition one does not practice and learn skills with them.....

You can argue that, but nukes aren’t the issue. I used them as an example that there is no absolute right to own weapons. To say that authorities cannot regulate military weapons is contrary to what the SCOTUS has said.

SCOTUS does not grant rights, if SCOTUS tomorrow ruled there was no right to bear arms, or to freedom of religion, or to free speech.....they would simply be wrong. The rights would still exist.

That position is pure Republican philosophical mumbo-jumbo. We are Canadians. We don’t have to get stuck in US ideological pitfalls, we can discuss reality. We have no constitutional right to “bear arms” in Canada and we live just fine. If authorities ruled we could no longer own them we could sneak them around, but we could not legally possess them. The same would happen in America

The SCOTUS in DC v Heller said (quoting directly from the judgment and the words of Mr. Justice Scalia) that

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

The case has been commented on by US experts, of course. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php, from the US Library of Congress. Amongst other things the following was said:
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
Let’s face reality. No government is going to say that its citizens can possess any weapon of any type anywhere. In pages 56 and 57 of DC v Heller, Justice Scalia refers specifically to an M1 Garand and says that the 2nd does not include the right to own one, under the dangerous and unusual weapons principle. That doesn’t mean you can’t own an M1 Garand in America – lots of people do, it just means that the right to do so is not constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Heller case did not refer to the current US debate about assault rifles, but obviously the writing is on the wall.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
And you respond!


F**king disgusting, anyone who thinks something like this rates being a part of any discussion needs professional help pronto!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,998
14,442
113
Low Earth Orbit
You didn't mention that. It is an obscure point, but I get what you're saying. That doesn't change my position. It points out a motive for enacting the 2nd. Because of Franklin's experience the politicians realized there was an issue. That supports my position that the purpose of the 2nd is to prevent a state from encroaching on the ability of the feds to raise a militia.



None at all. We are interpreting legislation. What is at issue is what the law actually says and how the courts have interpreted it. The rights any person might want are irrelevant unless they can be supported by those two factors. Your analysis points out that a state interfering with the raising of a militia had happened before the 2nd was written. It is logical that steps would be taken to prevent that issue from repeating itself.



You can argue that, but nukes aren’t the issue. I used them as an example that there is no absolute right to own weapons. To say that authorities cannot regulate military weapons is contrary to what the SCOTUS has said.



That position is pure Republican philosophical mumbo-jumbo. We are Canadians. We don’t have to get stuck in US ideological pitfalls, we can discuss reality. We have no constitutional right to “bear arms” in Canada and we live just fine. If authorities ruled we could no longer own them we could sneak them around, but we could not legally possess them. The same would happen in America

The SCOTUS in DC v Heller said (quoting directly from the judgment and the words of Mr. Justice Scalia) that
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

The case has been commented on by US experts, of course. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php, from the US Library of Congress. Amongst other things the following was said:
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
Let’s face reality. No government is going to say that its citizens can possess any weapon of any type anywhere. In pages 56 and 57 of DC v Heller, Justice Scalia refers specifically to an M1 Garand and says that the 2nd does not include the right to own one, under the dangerous and unusual weapons principle. That doesn’t mean you can’t own an M1 Garand in America – lots of people do, it just means that the right to do so is not constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Hellercase did not refer to the current US debate about assault rifles, but obviously the writing is on the wall.

in·al·ien·a·ble

/inˈālēənəbəl/

Adjective
Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

That means you can't deny them (your Rights).

They are PERMANENT!!!
 

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
If you wish to delve the meaning of the Bill of Rights, you have to seek understanding of the minds of the men that were involved in its creation.

Law is a discipline. Any person with a law degree can interpret the law without understanding the minds of politicians. From that it flows that others can do so as well. You seem well versed in the American NRA's interpretation of US gun rights, but that is not the last word on the subject. The recent US case DC v Heller was a 5-4 decision that broke cleanly along party lines. That is a shame because it demonstrates that the American Supreme Court tends to mimic the political parties instead of ruling based on case precedent and legal theory. It is a real weakness. The result is that US gun rights are not yet decided. They could well come back for a rematch once the Democrats get a majority on the court. Canada is different. The Supreme Court of Canada is highly respected around the world because it acts as a scholarly court of law, not an extension of politics. There are political biases, but they are scholarly, not ideologues like the US Supreme Court.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
BOOmer ~ why exactly are you mentioning me in this argument?.

Sure, Tober was asking if there was any "Liberals" from the United States on this forum...

You defending Obama with your dieing breath qualifies you as a Liberal.. ;)

Nothing derogatory or mean towards you personally..

Broken Record
Broken Record
Broken Record
Broken Record
Broken Record
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
He's no Liberal.

So what's with the Obama love affair??

- 2d Amendment rights, stopping government intrusion under the 4th Amendment, oppose income tax, and am a pro lifer, I know a few Liberals with those basic beliefs.

What's suddenly being called a Liberal on this forum is a dirty word?? :lol:

I mean, some would even have called Ronald Reagan a Liberal..
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
You didn't mention that. It is an obscure point, but I get what you're saying. That doesn't change my position. It points out a motive for enacting the 2nd. Because of Franklin's experience the politicians realized there was an issue. That supports my position that the purpose of the 2nd is to prevent a state from encroaching on the ability of the feds to raise a militia.



Actually, I did mention that...................and your contention that is was a cause to limit rights in the Bill of Rights is ridiculous nonsense.

 

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
F**king disgusting, anyone who thinks something like this rates being a part of any discussion needs professional help pronto!

That should give you an insight into the professionalism you have shown to a newcomer, and the world. For example that mouth of yours - kinda filthy isn't it?
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,998
14,442
113
Low Earth Orbit
So what's with the Obama love affair??

- 2d Amendment rights, stopping government intrusion under the 4th Amendment, oppose income tax, and am a pro lifer, I know a few Liberals with those basic beliefs.

What's suddenly being called a Liberal on this forum is a dirty word?? :lol:

I mean, some would even have called Ronald Reagan a Liberal..
The perceived Obama love affair?

Ron Reagun was indeed a Liberal. A Hollywood, Union President Liberal. It doesn't get any more Liberal than that.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.

None at all. We are interpreting legislation. What is at issue is what the law actually says and how the courts have interpreted it. The rights any person might want are irrelevant unless they can be supported by those two factors. Your analysis points out that a state interfering with the raising of a militia had happened before the 2nd was written. It is logical that steps would be taken to prevent that issue from repeating itself.





Reading comprehension is not your strong point. The COLONY did not interfere, it could only protest.

 

tober

Time Out
Aug 6, 2013
752
0
16
Actually, I did mention that...................and your contention that is was a cause to limit rights in the Bill of Rights is ridiculous nonsense.

I didn't say that it was a cause to limit rights. I said that it could be one of the reasons why the writers of the US constitution chose to insert the 2nd Amendment into the US Constitution.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point. The COLONY did not interfere, it could only protest.

"Interfere?" By the time the 2nd Amendment was written the colonies had done more than protest, they had successfully rebelled. They were no longer colonies, they were claiming national sovereignty. Your sense of hidtorical timing seems to be deserting you. Are you in the sauce? LOL!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,998
14,442
113
Low Earth Orbit
I didn't say that it was a cause to limit rights. I said that it could be one of the reasons why the writers of the US constitution chose to insert the 2nd Amendment into the US Constitution.



"Interfere?" By the time the 2nd Amendment was written the colonies had done more than protest, they had successfully rebelled.
And because it's Constitutional, it's INALIENABLE.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.

That position is pure Republican philosophical mumbo-jumbo. We are Canadians. We don’t have to get stuck in US ideological pitfalls, we can discuss reality. We have no constitutional right to “bear arms” in Canada and we live just fine. If authorities ruled we could no longer own them we could sneak them around, but we could not legally possess them. The same would happen in America



Of course is is limited...no nukes.

Oh and read the Charter, Section 26. Then read the English Bill of Rights of 1689, section 7.

We also have a limited right to keep arms.



in·al·ien·a·ble

/inˈālēənəbəl/

Adjective
Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

That means you can't deny them (your Rights).

They are PERMANENT!!!

Exactly. And they are neither granted, nor can they be removed by courts or gov'ts.......

I didn't say that it was a cause to limit rights. I said that it could be one of the reasons why the writers of the US constitution chose to insert the 2nd Amendment into the US Constitution.



"Interfere?" By the time the 2nd Amendment was written the colonies had done more than protest, they had successfully rebelled. They were no longer colonies, they were claiming national sovereignty. Your sense of hidtorical timing seems to be deserting you. Are you in the sauce? LOL!


Unfortunately, I am dealing with a moron.
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
*hick* http://stuff.digitalock.com/mamawereallcrazynow.mp3

Sorry dudes, I came in late... I am clearly worthy of all disgust anyone is worthy of hating, and so just upon sitting down at my desk I open this channel and get this.

I am split with the dilema of reading backwards to see if this cat has a point, or whether or not I should just ...

>coin flip<

Okee dokee smokee, I am going to analyze you based upon what you are presenting now. All your past errors are forgiven. I tried adding up my past errors and I ran out of numbers. The only thing matters is what you think now to where it's going from here.


That doesn't change my position. It points out a motive for enacting the 2nd.


What's the difference between barfing, wanting another drink, and adding a tune? Guess if you can tell from the next action what was decided. http://stuff.digitalock.com/Damien_Robitaille-Metres_De_Mon_Etre.mp3

Because of Franklin's experience
Franklin was depressed after the final decision on the constitution. He ran into a person on the street asking him the result, and he blurted, "A Republic if you can hold onto it".

the politicians realized there was an issue.

Ploliticians hadn't come into existence by that time.

That supports my position

You're "position"? Is that like you get paid to stand up on a surfboard?

that the purpose of the 2nd is to prevent a state from encroaching on the ability of the feds to raise a militia.

I want to puke. My family moved from hillbilly to Canada and my parents were serious (serious being defined how adults would hit kids) telling me if I ever moved back I would be disowned and if they ever caught me saying anything about anyone's colour I'd get spanked... and that was Korean War parents, which means you don't ... hang one a sec...

*hick* ... what we need here is propper background music ... http://stuff.digitalock.com/mynameisbosephus.mp3


Who the f*ck teaches you that stuff.


I got a twisted idea...

What if there be sub-adinents to the constitution.

What if it be class be that there be a sub-action to the thing about weapons which I searously cannot figure out how it more rthat waring diarp[aers and showi ng them jhow to shott. Ever seen jhow dumb idiots are not kowing how to show. I(mmediatlyt they are disarmec.

Therefoire I am going to pray.

http://stuff.digitalock.com/jarre_oxygene_2.mp3.filepart





Let’s face reality. No government is going to say that its citizens can possess any weapon of any type anywhere.
You stole that from me you f*ckin piece of astoturfin survant of hell.

In pages 56 and 57 of DC v Heller, Justice Scalia refers specifically to an M1 Garand and says that the 2nd does not include the right to own one, under the dangerous and unusual weapons principle. That doesn’t mean you can’t own an M1 Garand in America – lots of people do, it just means that the right to do so is not constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Heller
case did not refer to the current US debate about assault rifles, but obviously the writing is on the wall.


*hick*

Imagine the broken hearted position of being an astroterfer sent to work Canada.

http://stuff.digitalock.com/iwanttoliveinamrica.mp3

How would you feel getting a sot of land up north worth living on with warm climate change.