Sutherland shooting

Duck and cover
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:32 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:In short, Scalia went completely against all precedent to establish a federal right to bear arms, something that up until that point was completely up to the individual states.
That is factually incorrect.

Neither the states nor the federal government created any rights.
Again, you try to use two different definitions of rights to confuse the issue to your advantage.

Fact is that before the Supreme Court case there was no way to get a gun if a state said no - no justification required. In the legal sense, there was no right to a gun.

Whatever you dream about natural rights is completely irrelevant.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23214
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:33 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:The Opening Arguments Podcast has a couple of excellent shows about the 2nd Amendment and its history (starting with Episodes 21 and 26).
In short, Scalia went completely against all precedent to establish a federal right to bear arms, something that up until that point was completely up to the individual states.

http://openargs.com
Best SCOTUS money could buy.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1276
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Cadmusteeth » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:35 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:No - there did not exist a right to carry guns before the US created that right. That some people did so, did not make it a right.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do most legal historians. And their opinion counts for far more than your ignorant blatherings.

The US Constitution does not create any rights. It merely protects pre-existing rights from being infringed by the government.

If you don't understand this distinction, then I recommend you get yourself some more education and remedy your ignorance on the matter.
My cat disagrees with you.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:43 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:In short, Scalia went completely against all precedent to establish a federal right to bear arms, something that up until that point was completely up to the individual states.
That is factually incorrect.

Neither the states nor the federal government created any rights.
Again, you try to use two different definitions of rights to confuse the issue to your advantage.
BS.

This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the courts and other legal experts.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:44 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:My cat disagrees with you.
Tell someone who cares.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:47 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Fact is that before the Supreme Court case there was no way to get a gun if a state said no - no justification required. In the legal sense, there was no right to a gun.
That is factually incorrect.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:48 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:In short, Scalia went completely against all precedent to establish a federal right to bear arms, something that up until that point was completely up to the individual states.
That is factually incorrect.

Neither the states nor the federal government created any rights.
Again, you try to use two different definitions of rights to confuse the issue to your advantage.
BS.

This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the courts and other legal experts.
not when it comes to guns prior to the Heller decision.
Arguments from Natural Law are rare, and there is no way to claim that there is something natural about semi-automatic weapons.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:48 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Fact is that before the Supreme Court case there was no way to get a gun if a state said no - no justification required. In the legal sense, there was no right to a gun.
That is factually incorrect.
prove it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:55 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Fact is that before the Supreme Court case there was no way to get a gun if a state said no - no justification required. In the legal sense, there was no right to a gun.
That is factually incorrect.
prove it.
You prove your claim first.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:56 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:In short, Scalia went completely against all precedent to establish a federal right to bear arms, something that up until that point was completely up to the individual states.
That is factually incorrect.

Neither the states nor the federal government created any rights.
Again, you try to use two different definitions of rights to confuse the issue to your advantage.
BS.

This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the courts and other legal experts.
not when it comes to guns prior to the Heller decision.
Arguments from Natural Law are rare, and there is no way to claim that there is something natural about semi-automatic weapons.
Your legal ignorance is showing.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:59 pm

xouper wrote: You prove your claim first.
nope.
This is on you.
I have linked legal arguments for my case (see the podcast); you can check them out and try to disprove them.

I doubt you can.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:03 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:You prove your claim first.
nope.
This is on you.
I have linked legal arguments for my case (see the podcast); you can check them out and try to disprove them.

I doubt you can.
Sorry, that podcast does not prove your case.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:05 pm

xouper wrote: Sorry, that podcast does not prove your case.
wow - I didn't know you could listen this fast!

Amazing!

So what is your reasoned counter-argument?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:00 pm

xouper wrote:breitbart.com/
:shock:

Gotta chooz your info soursez carefully.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:07 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Fact is that before the Supreme Court case there was no way to get a gun if a state said no - no justification required. In the legal sense, there was no right to a gun.
xouper wrote:That is factually incorrect.
ElectricMonk wrote:prove it.
xouper wrote:You prove your claim first.
ElectricMonk wrote:I have linked legal arguments for my case (see the podcast); you can check them out and try to disprove them.
xouper wrote:Sorry, that podcast does not prove your case.
ElectricMonk wrote:So what is your reasoned counter-argument?
Nowhere in that interview with attorney Andrew Storrez does he say what you claim.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:15 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:breitbart.com/
:shock:

Gotta chooz your info soursez carefully.
I am open to considering that particular news item might have some facts wrong, same as any other source like CNN or the Washington Post (both of which have a clear record of posting fake news).

So if there is something factually incorrect in that story, then please let me know by citing a source with the correct information.

Is that fair enough?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:25 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:My cat disagrees with you.
I dont think xouper gets it.

xouper, my frend, there are no rites outside uv wut the gubbermint establishez.

Therez this invention called 'Sivilization' (usually spelled 'civilization' by the chimps who dont really understand the idea) thats suppozed to make life better for us humanz than the Jungle Rulez established and enforsed by Mother Nature. It iz essentially an artificial envirement within Mother Nature'z Jungle Rulez envirement.

The goverments uv nationz create a set uv lawz that establish sum version uv the Sivilization invention. How well it works can be measured az a persentaj between 0% sivilized (back to Jungle Rulez agen) and 100% sivilized (everybody iz alwayz perfectly safe and jenerally happy).

Perhaps the main karacteristik uv Jungle Rulez iz the constant hi possibility uv getting killed.

The main karakteristik uv Sivilization iz not having to spend every waking moment worrying about getting killed.

In a theoretically perfect version uv Sivilization, you can go to sleep anywhere - the sidewok outside uv the tavern you got plastered in - and in spite uv being a feeble blob uv fat nerd girl, wake up at 3 pm and go home, the idea that sumthing bad coud hav happened never crossing your mind bekuz everybody iz alwayz perfectly safe. (OK - maybe you got pooped on by the birdz in the tree you were under, but I dont think that justifiez any reduction from 100% Sivilized bekuz the unplezentness uv having poop on you iz more than made up for by the comedy factor in later story telling.)

Put 1 single gun in this envirement and that 100% rating iz gon. Now there iz sum chans that you will get shot. And the more gunz you ad, the more likely it iz that you can get killed, so the lower the % goez.

Do the math. Its crystal clear.

Gunz within this artificial Sivilization envirement make it possible that you can be killed at any time. This clearly redusez the % level uv Sivilization. It iz a major flaw in the version uv Sivilization created by the guverment. A mistake. A goof. A blunder. Call the R&D department, they got work to do.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:29 pm

xouper wrote:Is that fair enough?
Nope.

Brietbart iz not a newz organization. It iz a propaganda mill.

Yes, real newz outlets occasional make mistakes and maybe even intentionally omit pertinent facts, but in jeneral your claim uv "a clear record of posting fake news" iz false.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:38 pm

JO 753 wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:My cat disagrees with you.
I dont think xouper gets it.

xouper, my frend, there are no rites outside uv wut the gubbermint establishez.
Both the US Constitution and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagree with that, as do many other legal documents such as the constitution of the state of California.

It is well documented that the concept of inalienable rights is a key idea in the founding of the United States.

The US Constitution does not create (or grant) rights, but rather it acknowledges pre-existing rights and is charged with protecting them. This concept is clearly explained in the Declaration of Independence.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:05 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Is that fair enough?
Nope.

Brietbart iz not a newz organization. It iz a propaganda mill.
You just invoked the fallacy of argumentem ad hominem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem wrote:Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
If there is anything factually incorrect in that story I cited, then I will be happy to admit that I cited an inaccurate source.

Calling the story propaganda does not refute the information in it.

If you wish to reject that Brietbart story on the basis that you do not trust its credibility, then I will accept that.

In any case, I'm not going to go looking for another source at this time. Feel free to find your own source for that information. If you do that, then please post it, especially if you find a source that refutes the Breitbart story.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:25 pm

JO 753 wrote:Yes, real newz outlets occasional make mistakes and maybe even intentionally omit pertinent facts, but in jeneral your claim uv "a clear record of posting fake news" iz false.
Not false. It's well documented that CNN and the Washington Post, for example, have published totally false stories. Fake news.

Nonetheless, I found this:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briannasacks/n ... vvQnNjAPaj

It seems to be describing a recent false story put out by Brietbart. I am tempted to believe their accusation against Breitbart.

In which case, Breitbart is no better than CNN and the Washington Post who have also been caught putting out fake news.

Who can you trust these days? Certainly not MSNBC.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:59 pm

xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:After Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people with a AR-15 in Tasmania, in 1996, we collectively as a nation got rid of assault rifles. That was the end of that problem.
Well, perhaps that was not quite the end of that problem.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... s-amnesty/
I changed my mind and decided to go look for another source instead of Breitbart. (JO had something to do with that, so credit where credit's due.)

So I found several stories from more mainstream sources that seem to say the same thing as the Breitbart story, that the gun problem has not been solved in Australia:
I don't know anything about this next source, other than it's in Australia and that wikipedia doesn't have any dirt on it:
In that story is an interesting chart that shows gun crime soaring since 2011. And it cites official government data as the source.

Nonetheless, I don't claim to know what to believe in this matter. I just found it fishy that Matthew said the problem was solved. It seems the situation might not be rosy as Matthew claims.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:33 pm

xouper wrote:Both the US Constitution and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagree with that, as do many other legal documents such as the constitution of the state of California.
It duznt matter how many peepl or organizationz agree with each other. It iz ONLY the agreement that makes Sivilization work. There iz no fundamental reality to it. Its an illusion.

And, paradoxically, its the rite to bear armz that so often blowz a hole in the illusion. Any pinhed with a cheap gun can not agree and instantly proov hiz point.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:07 pm

xouper wrote:I changed my mind and decided to go look for another source instead of Breitbart. (JO had something to do with that, so credit where credit's due.)
I wuznt disputing that particular story.

They arent idiots at Brietbart and thats the real danjer. Their job iz to influens public opinion and they are very good at it. If they can post a story that servez their purpose without deviating from the facts, great! Perfect! Cant get any better than that. But if they need to chanje sumthing for it to work, they will not hezitate to consider their journalistic valuez. There iz no limit to wut they will rite to accomplish their mission IF they think they can get away with it. And with their captiv audiens uv rite wingnut bleevrz gobbling up everything they rite without bothering to verify it, they are pretty much free to venture into National Enquirer territory wen they want.

To think that they cant fool you iz a mistake. At the very least, you are wasting your time reading anything from them bekuz you will haf to read the same story from a real newz organization anyway to verify it. At worst, they will convins you uv sum lie so well that no amount uv facts and lojik can untangle your brain.

I know 3 peepl in RL hoo are in that condition. I hav prooven to them dozenz uv timez that the story they were told wuz krap. They are enthuziasticly blabbing about the Big Newz implicating Obama or Hillary or whoever, fresh off the GoP pressez. Within 5 minits uv looking into it, I'm forsing them to admit they got fooled agen, then not long after, they are back with another steaming Cup O' Crap from the same propaganda mill!

They apparently fail to feel any shame for getting tricked. Like you coud hand them a glass uv soda, watch them dring it down, then say HAHA! I peed in it! See? Herez the video! Then do the exact same thing the next day and the next and the next and they just keep drinking.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:09 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Both the US Constitution and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagree with that, as do many other legal documents such as the constitution of the state of California.
It duznt matter how many peepl or organizationz agree with each other. It iz ONLY the agreement that makes Sivilization work. There iz no fundamental reality to it. Its an illusion.
Apparently some of us don't always see things the same way.

I'll just leave it at that.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1276
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Cadmusteeth » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:24 pm

xouper wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:My cat disagrees with you.
Tell someone who cares.
Same with your comments about the supreme Court.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Aztexan » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:17 pm

Gentlemen, please leave the cats out of this.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:My cat disagrees with you.
xouper wrote:Tell someone who cares.
Cadmusteeth wrote:Same with your comments about the supreme Court.
The opinion of the US Supreme Court is relevant to the topic.

The opinion of your cat is not.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1276
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Cadmusteeth » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:18 am

The point of it either flew over your head or you're intentionally downplaying it.
Going to just assume the first and say that the point was that the Court's ruling on the gun issue is equivalent to my cat's opinion.
It doesn't lend any proof or evidence that rights are intrinsic to reality. Saying you, or the court, or any number of people disagree that freedoms are not intrinsic doesn't mean anything. Except that you disagree; that's all there is too it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17693
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:35 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:Saying you, or the court, or any number of people disagree that freedoms are not intrinsic doesn't mean anything. Except that you disagree; that's all there is too it.
......well, one hopes the opinion is backed up with some analysis? OK......thats rare. It is noticeable when folks post their opinion supported by some analysis that actually doesn't support their position (usually a talking point like "Guns don't kill People) and then refuse to listen to any counter analysis.

aka: its not "just" opinions. Opinions are just the start. But sadly......ok......too often the finish as well.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:03 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Saying you, or the court, or any number of people disagree that freedoms are not intrinsic doesn't mean anything. Except that you disagree; that's all there is too it.
......well, one hopes the opinion is backed up with some analysis?
It is factually incorrect to imply it is merely my opinion with no supporting "analysis".

The justification (and analysis) for saying that people have certain inalienable rights has been published by many great thinkers. Your local library most likely has copies of those publications.

And I have explained some of that "analysis" here on this forum.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:31 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:The point of it either flew over your head or you're intentionally downplaying it.

Going to just assume the first and say that the point was that the Court's ruling on the gun issue is equivalent to my cat's opinion.

It doesn't lend any proof or evidence that rights are intrinsic to reality. Saying you, or the court, or any number of people disagree that freedoms are not intrinsic doesn't mean anything. Except that you disagree; that's all there is too it.
Sorry, but the legal opinion of your cat is not at all equivalent to the opinion of any human being, let alone the legal opinion of the US Supreme Court.

The point of mentioning the opinion of the Court (and others) is intended as a reminder that there is much reasonable and valid justification for that opinion. It is not just an opinion, it is a strongly justifiable opinion.

The opinion of your cat has no such supporting "evidence" or justification. None at all.

When you argue that this disagreement is merely a difference of opinion, that is an admission you have nothing more than your cat's opinion. Sorry, but a cat's opinion is a very bad argument against the vast weight of evidence for the existence of inalienable rights.

To say it another way, if you were to put your cat on the witness stand, that "testimony" would carry no weight whatsoever with the judge or jury. Compare that to the volumes of well reasoned testimony from a plethora of expert witnesses, and the jury would have no difficulty deciding who's legal opinion is better. Answer: Not your cat's.

It is absurd to argue that your cat's legal opinion is equally valid to the legal opinion of the US Supreme Court.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:14 am

The cat's opinion iz superior.

Nature'z rulez are not the delicate agreements made by men.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:54 am

JO 753 wrote:The cat's opinion iz superior.

Nature'z rulez are not the delicate agreements made by men.
When a government takes away some of your rights, as the Nazis did to certain groups of people, are you arguing you have no justifiable reason to say they are wrong to do so?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:42 am

X, have you ever checked when the 2nd amendment was Incorporated?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:05 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:X, have you ever checked when the 2nd amendment was Incorporated?
If by that you mean when did the Supreme Court first confirm that the 14th Amendment applied to the 2nd Amendment (thus officially incorporating  it to the states), then yes, that happened in 2010, in McDonald v Chicago.

Prior to that, the question had never been put before the Supreme Court.

Had the question come up earlier, then it would have been incorporated earlier, so it's not valid to say that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the 2nd Amendment until 2010. That's merely the date that the court officially confirmed it. Which means the 14th has always applied to the 2nd, which was the original intent of the 14th.

Not to mention that most state constitutions also had their own version of the 2nd Amendment, so it was not true that there was no right to buy a gun in those states prior to 2010.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:45 pm

xouper wrote: When a government takes away some of your rights, as the Nazis did to certain groups of people, are you arguing you have no justifiable reason to say they are wrong to do so?
Thats rite. They had the power to do it, so they did it. Same az the United States Goverment duz now. Same az all governments hav alwayz dun.

Try to think uv the 2nd amendment az a functional dezine flaw in a machine - its a bar on a spinning shaft that smaks into other parts regularly bekuz the enjineerz who dezined the machine goofed up royally. Az a product, the American version uv Sivilization needz to be recalled. Unfortunately, there iz no hire power to forse the action, so the Uncle Sam Goverment Company'z lazy and irresponsible manajment will just keep selling it's defectiv product indefinetly.
JO 753 wrote:The cat's opinion iz superior.
'Superior' iz the rite word from the widest perspectiv, but in this context, 'stronger' iz more revealing.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:33 pm

X

how can you argue that there always was a universal right to own guns in the US if there wasn't one applicable to all states until 2010?
Almost all Constitutional rights were Incorporated in the 30s and 40s but notably NOT the 2nd one.
This shows that in the minds of legal scholars and judges it simply doesn't have the same standing as the rest of the Constitution.
That is until activist Scalia decided otherwise against all precedent.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23214
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:15 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:X

how can you argue that there always was a universal right to own guns in the US if there wasn't one applicable to all states until 2010?
Almost all Constitutional rights were Incorporated in the 30s and 40s but notably NOT the 2nd one.
This shows that in the minds of legal scholars and judges it simply doesn't have the same standing as the rest of the Constitution.
That is until activist Scalia decided otherwise against all precedent.
The best SCOTUS money could buy.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:39 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:When a government takes away some of your rights, as the Nazis did to certain groups of people, are you arguing you have no justifiable reason to say they are wrong to do so?
Thats rite.
OK, I was just checking to see if that really was your position.

I give you credit for being honest about that.