Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

So, then, you believe Trump is innocent until proven guilt? (in a court of law, not the main stream media, of courcse)

 

Legally, of course.

But, I’m entitled to my opinion.

 

Of course.

 

but when he claims Trump overturned the 2020 election results, the rest of us can call bullshit on that claim

 

Fortunately there were American patriots that stood up to his attempts, and he failed. Not for lack of trying but because good Americans said no to his lies.

 

I should think so, given that facts and truth tend to have a liberal bias, so it tells me that conservatives do see the truth, once in a while. Liberals don't need to swing right because they are right much more often.

Ah, Bullseye, you've hit the wrong target. See, it's funny how we're talking about reducing gun deaths and suddenly, we're sidestepped into the world of 'hard left prosecutors.' It’s like saying, ‘Hey, my house is on fire,’ and you’re like, ‘Yeah, but have you noticed the neighbor’s lawn is overgrown?’ Focus, my friend, focus. We're talking about guns, not courtrooms.

And let’s not kid ourselves. The idea that enforcing existing laws is somehow exclusively a 'hard left' problem is like saying only clowns wear big shoes. It’s a bit more complex than that, isn’t it? Laws, like guns, aren't inherently good or bad. It's how they're used that counts. Just like how some folks use guns for protection and others for, well, less admirable purposes, laws can be wielded in all sorts of ways. And let's not forget, sometimes those laws themselves are as twisted as a pretzel in a yoga class.

So, when we talk about reducing gun deaths, let’s not get distracted by the ideological circus. It's not about scoring points, left or right. It’s about addressing the issue with the seriousness it deserves. Let's look at the root causes, the societal factors, and yes, the laws and their enforcement. But let’s do it with the aim of solving the problem, not winning an argument or demonizing a side.

Remember, when it comes to gun control, it’s not just about pulling triggers; it’s about pulling the right levers in society to make sure we’re all a bit safer. And maybe, just maybe, we can do that without turning it into a political sideshow. But hey, what do I know? I’m just a mere mortal, like everyone else, not a marksman.

 

No one claimed he did, but he's being prosecuted for unlawfully engaging in a conspiracy that attempted to do it.

There is no way in hell the prosecutors, mindful that the prosecution of a former US President is a historical event, a historical first, and the weight of that fact, well, let's just note that the world spotlight will be burning down their backsides, there is no way in hell they are doing to indict Trump without having a ton of evidence, given the simple fact that if they fail, their failure, too, will go down in history. Not to mention the old adage, 'if you aim an arrow at a king, you'd better not miss". Now, if you can't fathom kind of pressure they have walked into, then there is no way I can explain you the absurdity of the notion that they are doing this willy nilly, without evidence.

All of the Trump and Repub allegations that the indictments are 'political' become a moot point if there is evidence, and you can bet there is not only evidence, there is a TON of it.

 

Oh, really now? and you learned of this where, playing the kazoo to frogs on lilypads, or the right wing echo chamber?

 

WOW! You mar have worked overtime coming up with this nonsense.

Sorry, was it too hard to understand letting violent criminals back on the street leads to more crime than keeping them locked up?

No, it's not.

Yep that's exactly my point.

Red Herring. protection and committing crimes are NOT two sides of the same coin.

I'm not arguing ideological anything. I'm arguing enforcing the law firmly and fairly is the best path. You're the one that turns every issue into an ideological joust.

. Then stop turning every issue into an ideological argument. Law enforcement ISN'T ideological; it's keeping society and the population safe and criminals under control.

 

Pretty evident if you don't have your head in the sand but I need look no further than your post on the topic of the second amendment.

You twist it and spin it so hard it needs some motion sickness pills and some analgesic balm.

 

Your rebuttal to @Noone glides elegantly over a few crucial points, doesn't it? Firstly, let's acknowledge the elephant in the room: the power of Congress to regulate international commerce, as stated in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, is clear as day. No argument there. But, and here's where the plot thickens, the intertwining of this power with the Second and Tenth Amendments isn't as straightforward as you make it out to be.

Now, about the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) — you're placing a hefty bet on these being struck down. That's a bold prediction, given the complex and often unpredictable nature of judicial review. It's like predicting the weather in England; you might as well flip a coin.

Let's not forget the recent rulings you've mentioned. Yes, some federal judges have indeed called into question the constitutionality of certain restrictions, such as age limits for handgun purchases or gun ownership by cannabis users. These decisions, however, are akin to chipping away at a mountain with a spoon. Significant? Perhaps. Earth-shattering? Hardly.

And then, the pièce de résistance: your prediction of a rebuke for the ATF/Biden/Garland team over the pistol brace issue. Here, you're not just predicting the weather; you're forecasting a hurricane in a teacup. The administrative and legal intricacies of such a case are daunting, and the outcome is anything but a foregone conclusion.

In essence, your argument, while passionate, skates on thin ice over a deep lake of constitutional, legal, and political complexities. It's an admirable display of confidence, certainly, but confidence alone doesn't sway the scales of justice. They require a bit more weight, don't you think?

 

I think i just proved you wrong.

 

IN ALL THAT verbiage, can you actually tell us what part of Article One Section Eight was actually intended to allow congress to do an end around the second amendment. the entire NFA is blatantly unconstitutional

 

Here's exhibit a of exactly what I was talking about....

Instead of simply reading the second amendment you go on a long winded diatribe attempting to interpret it to fit your narrative

 

Just as I thought, your playing the kazoo to the fever swamp, but, fortunately, no one is listening.

Not very compelling, I'm afraid.

Quite a few learned folks think Bruen is a very bad ruling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/23/bruen-supreme-court-gun-rights-dangerous/

In striking down the New York law, Justice Clarence Thomas’s six-justice majority purported to rely on history, albeit a very selective reading of history. The opinion rather frenetically plucks examples out of the often contradictory morass of history to make its point, all while claiming to be simply relying on the original public meaning of the amendment.

Since Heller and a companion case in 2010, the Supreme Court turned away chances to rule on this question, while hundreds of lower courts developed an approach. Yes, they ruled, there is an individual right — but society has rights, too. Borrowing from First Amendment law, they first asked whether a Second Amendment right was involved, and then applied “intermediate scrutiny”: Gun rights can be limited by concerns over public safety. This consensus view was propounded by Republican-appointed judges and Democratic-appointed judges, and adopted by every federal appeals court that considered the issue.

The ruling Thursday says that all these judges got it wrong. Instead, the majority said, courts must assess gun rules especially focusing solely on “history and tradition.” Don’t look at public safety; search for analogies to past laws from a very different time.

​

 

That's not an argument.

Whose narrative should I interpret it, Fatback? Yours? Whose, fatback? Tell me, please,

Or, rather, do you even think your thoughts through to their logical conclusion?

You suggest, Fatback, that the mere act of reading the Second Amendment should suffice, as if its words were as clear and unambiguous as a stop sign on a sunny day. Yet, here we are, in a debate that has spanned centuries, with scholars, jurists, and laymen alike grappling with its interpretation. To imply that the amendment’s meaning is self-evident is to ignore the rich tapestry of American legal discourse.

If brevity in argumentation is your gold standard, limiting it to, say, 25 words or less, I fear you would have been immensely disappointed with Messrs. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. These gentlemen, in their wisdom, penned some 85 essays in defense of the Constitution, known as the Federalist Papers. Not exactly a study in brevity, but rather a profound exploration of constitutional interpretation. Now, of course, I do not claim to be in their league, not by a long shot, but that fact does not controvert the point.

Let's not forget, the Constitution is a living document, not a relic to be dusted off and admired from a distance. It was crafted with the foresight that times would change, and with it, the context of its interpretation. To argue that we should merely read it, without context or analysis, is akin to reading the instructions of a board game and yet refusing to play it.

Your accusation of my argument being a diatribe seems to be a convenient shield, a way to sidestep the complexities of constitutional interpretation. It's an art as much as a science, requiring a nuanced understanding of not just the words, but the historical context, judicial precedents, and the ever-evolving landscape of our society.

So, while I appreciate your call for simplicity, Bullseye, law, much like life, is rarely simple. And to reduce such a critical discourse to mere reading is to do a disservice not only to the Constitution but to the very principles of justice and democracy it upholds. Let's engage in a debate that befits the gravitas of the issue at hand, shall we?

But, alas, I doubt you're up to the task.

 

Respecting precedent does not equal slavery. Stare decisis is a concept that gives stability in the court, Without it, the court's leanings will change every time the court's judicial philosophy changes. All they had to do was disrespect stare decisis, like the current court has done with Roe.

 

@ECA

Why would anyone be foolish enough to rebut a point which you, yourself, cannot substantiate? Sounds like a fools errand, to me.

So these guys told you, in unequivocal terms, they agree with your characterization of "I think that there are some politicians who are restrained from trying to implement their fascist dreams because of the fact so many people are armed.".

Somehow, that does not ring true. Given your right wing spin on reality elsewhere, I'm confident those folks said nothing of the kind, if, indeed, you actually know them. . But, why don't you publish their confirmation of your claim, in letters signed by them, and perhaps then we can believe you?

So, in point of fact, your claim has no way of being substantiated, and we are supposed to sit here and take your word for this tall tale?

On an internet debate forum, that's not how it works.

 

From you

 

Thats why they need a dozen paragraphs just to dispute a 27 word single sentence.

 

Too long didn't read and don't care to read the pontification.

It's really not that difficult to simply read the Constitution instead of trying to twist it to fit your narrative.

 

Precisely so. Just throw up a wall of text and declare yourself the winner !!!

He's proving my point that liberals cannot simply read the Constitution but they feel the need to interpret it.

And he's going to go on and keep proving my point again and again and again.

But that's hardly surprising given that he is pretentious enough to think that his opinions should override supreme Court ruling.

 

He's into his "baffle with bs mode". Also toss in a little insult and the usual partisanship thing.

 

Just business as usual.
Imagine thinking that your opinion should actually change supreme Court rulings.

 

They want to oppress but the Constitution is proving to be a difficult obstacle.

Not the Constitution so much as the educated people.