If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by FlamingLib, Sep 14, 2019.

  1. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't. No.
    Government, likely.
    Iran? Can they own one? Without a likely war?
     
  2. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Owning a nuke
    Our government tells them they can't.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
  3. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So. I can tell you not to own a loofah sponge.
     
  4. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only if he tells them about it. He runs Microsoft I'm sure he can figure out how to avoid .Gov surveillance if there even is any on him.

    You dont understand that they likely have had nukes since before the Iran nuclear deal, do you?
    Sorry, that's too naive for me to consider plausible.
     
  5. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rights are not up for a vote. Hell the right recognized in the 2a isnt even granted by it
     
    SiNNiK and 557 like this.
  6. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think they dont already have them?
     
  7. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which only allows Congress to set their arms to bring to militia service, it does not allow Congress to violate the 2a and ban firearms generally or any not recognized for militia service.
     
    Professor Peabody and roorooroo like this.
  8. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except this interpretation depends on what the rules of grammar were when the sentence was written. It's in plain ****ing English.

    You'll need an amendment, which you wont get and none of us will abide by if you do.
     
  9. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Local Cops and the military wouldn't do it.
     
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So civics isn't your thing. Got it.
    There is no militia clause. Basic grammar shows you that. And it’s settled law. It can’t be revisited.
    Basic grammar.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
    Reality likes this.
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that would have no relevance as the right to keep and bear arms isn’t connected with militia service.
     
    Reality likes this.
  12. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since as written the 2nd A pertains only to militia service, the latter is irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
  13. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except that's demonstrably false. Seems like you need to work on your grade school level grammar there chief. Prefatory clauses (like the militia bit) do not operate to modify, take away from, or otherwise change the effect of operative clauses.
     
  14. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not according to the English language and rules of grammar. Sorry.
     
    ButterBalls and Reality like this.
  15. Wrathful_Buddha

    Wrathful_Buddha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    1,370
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we look at how Comey, Epstein, Obama and the Clintons have been allowed to get away numerous crimes, and the lawlessness at the border, we see that there is already no law. All that matters in this day and age is who has the most firepower, which is why the Dems want to disarm everyone.
    Sure, laws to confiscate firearms could be passed but they wouldn't have any legitamacy because the people passing them are lawless and illegitimate. If they don't have to abide by laws then why should we? What's to stop people from saying their "illegal" firearms are merely "undocumented" firearms.

    As far as LEO's are concerned, I think a lot them will resign, or declare their counties or cities as sanctuaries. I'm sure the rest will be given the opportunity to drop their weapons and walk away if they try to enforce because nobody wants a civil war. I pray for peace.
     
  16. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    It's illegal even if it is court ordered gun owners should resist ot
     
  17. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,306
    Likes Received:
    48,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is your 'patriots'...

     
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is according to the 2nd A as written.
     
  19. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not according to the plain English language it’s written in, and according to the rules of grammar. Sorry.
     
  20. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong!

    "The ship having arrived, the passengers were asked to embark"
    "Standing on a chair, John could reach the ceiling"

    Thus
    "If the ship had not arrived, the passengers would not have been asked to embark".
    "If John were not standing on a chair, he would not be able to reach the ceiling"
    "If a militia were not necessary for the security of a free state..."
    You get the picture....

    The absolute clause (what you and Scalia call "prefatory", which is not a term often used by real linguists) states a principle that is the cause of the principle stated in the main clause.

    This is why lawyers should do law... and let linguists do linguistics. A lawyer trying to do linguistics is as ridiculous as it would be for a linguist to try to do law.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lawyers should do law. Linguists should do linguistics. When this gets mangled, we get ridiculous monstrosities like the ridiculous Heller decision.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
  22. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good thing Heller cites linguists eh?

    Not to mention: your example sentences are deficient as examples of prefatory and operative clauses.

    Here let me give you a low impact example:

    A well regulated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.

    Now, who may keep and bear books? Under what conditions? Must they be part of the electorate? Can their rights be curtailed?
     
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah. Cites them incorrectly. I have not seen a single reputable linguist hold that Scalia's nonsense has anything to do with linguistics, or grammar.

    One would think there is a real linguist out there among gun nuts. But I haven't seen one come out. Not to mean there might not be one. Just that I haven't seen them. In the mean time, the real linguists are outraged about how this attorney manage do mangle the discipline they have studied, developed and taught all their lives.

    One of these days you might learn that just... saying something.... but not accompanying it with arguments, is not going to get you far. That day your debating skills might improve immensely. As things are....

    Here let me give you a low impact example:

    Thank you. There you go! You prove my point. If the absolute and main clause had no relation, as in your example, the phrase would make zero sense and would be completely meaningless.
     
  24. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If they do, then no reason for tRUMP's sanctions.
     
  25. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If they do, then no reason for tRUMP's sanctions.
     

Share This Page