Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Spooky, May 23, 2018.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cannot.
     
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You really need to read for comprehension.

    Facts:
    - Simple ownership/possession of a firearms harms no one
    - Simple ownership/possession of a firearm places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
    As such, under the premise and precedents set by 1st Amendment jurisprudence, the simple ownership/possession of a firearm by someone who holds the right to keep and bear arms cannot be constitutionally limited.
     
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    34,249
    Likes Received:
    4,147
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How you end (bold) gets at the main point of my post. The constitution was never intended to cover everything nor was it to be stagnant.

    When we say "The purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret the constitution" - what does this mean ? What is the basis for interpretation ?

    The authority of Gov't comes from we the people "consent of the governed" and not the reverse. The main job of the SC is then to assess public sentiment ( 2/3rds majority required for law to be legitimate) and guard against "Tyranny of the Majority".

    It is a fact that the overwhelming majority are for at least some regulations on gun ownership. Such laws are then legitimate and constitutional.

    What people do is try to put the cart before the horse. They cry "constitution- constitution" but ignore the principles on which law and the constitution is supposed to be interpreted (and possibly altered although this requires a slightly higher bar 75%)
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,153
    Likes Received:
    3,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the case of the 2nd amendment, the SCOTUS majority ruled that the two clauses were not related - that they could rule based on only one of the clauses.

    That's the horse pucky I'm referring to. They wanted to give a specific ruling and decided to ignore what the founders wrote in order to justify that ruling.

    The framers stated a specific purpose - state militias. They said nothing about other purposes. Also, the Heller decision reversed long standing previous precedent - stare decisis. And, that the overturning of the long standing legal interpretation was based on pretty much NOTHING!

    Finally, the Heller case was about trigger locks and other issues that did NOT require anything close to the breadth of Scalia's ruling.

    This was a BLATANT case of legislation from the bench and demonstrates the total falsity of the claims that Scalia was interested in strict reading of the text OR that he cared about what the founders intended. He was interested in one thing only - his personal view of the political issue.


    The whole 2nd amendment situation today isn't even close to what the original NRA cared about. It's own founders would be horrified.
     
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    34,249
    Likes Received:
    4,147
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Preaching to the choir mate. One can list law after law of such violations "legislating from the bench" and deliberately avoiding the principles on which law and the constitution are supposed to be interpreted.

    SC Judges are chosen/vetted on the basis of political agenda. These Judges then push political agenda rather than the founding principles.


    The natural tendency of Gov't (and SCOTUS is part of Gov't) is to increase Gov't power.

    The founders tried to set up a system that would limit Gov't power. For over 200 years Gov't has been trying to get that power back - and it has succeeded.
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  6. a better world

    a better world Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    See posts 1083-4-5.

    You probably should not the read the letter of one amendment into the context of another; and as WillReadmore has noted:

    The framers stated a specific purpose - state militias. They said nothing about other purposes. Also, the Heller decision reversed long standing previous precedent - stare decisis. And, that the overturning of the long standing legal interpretation was based on pretty much NOTHING!

    Another problem: judges who like to read the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. The letter doesn't change with the times, but the spirit can.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of this matters, and the law says so:

    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

    You don't have to like it, but to argue otherwise is to choose to be wrong.

    And so, under the premise and precedents set by 1st Amendment jurisprudence, the simple ownership/possession of a firearm by someone who holds the right to keep and bear arms cannot be constitutionally limited.
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please cite the specific USSC rulings overturned by Heller
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,153
    Likes Received:
    3,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    United States V. Miller
    Lewis v. United States
    United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines
    United States v. Johnson
    Cody v. United States
    Printz v. United States


    The first clause of the 2nd amendment can not be simply ignored.

    It indicates that the justification for carrying has to do with a militia.

    The obvious fallout is that weapons that don't have a specific militia related purpose are not covered by the 2nd amendment.

    Note that the 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...".

    The 2nd amendment does not say that. It says that the requirement of a well regulated militia is a justification for ownership of weapons.

    Weapons not justified by a well regulated militia are not covered by the 2nd amendment.


    This is based on United States v. Miller, which was decided in 1939.
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Specifically, where does Heller overturn Miller?
    "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name"
    United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.
    Not a USSC decision, and thus irrelevant.
    Cite? There like 50 under this name.
    Cite? There's at least 6.
    Specifically, where did Heller overturn Printz?
    Your opinion on the matter does not matter.
    That's from Miller.
    You believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to own and use an M16.
    Good to hear.
    It does not.
    It DOES say:
    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.
    Miller says no such thing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,153
    Likes Received:
    3,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do your homework.
    True. Of course, there is the issue of the existence of a "well regulated militia". And, I'd point out that the gun death we're seeing today is coming from sources not particularly similar to an M16.
    [/QUOTE]
    Yes, good point. It's not about citizens, it's about the right of the people. Perhaps our founders remembered that France helped with our revolution and considered that there could be non-citizen militia members living here in the USA.
     
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I accept your concession of the point; Heller did not overturn any precedence from the USSC.
    There isn't.
    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home -- including, as you concede, an M16.
    Virtually all firearm-related crime involves a handgun, rifle or shotgun
    Handguns, rifles and shotguns are all issued to members of the military and as such, all have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.
    And thus, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,153
    Likes Received:
    3,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol!
    Once again, you're suggesting that the first clause of the sentence doesn't even exist.

    Deciding that the founders wrote that whole clause in order for you and Scalia to totally ignore it is just about as stupid an idea as I can imagine. Under NO theory of constitutional interpretation is it proposed that entire clauses can be ignored.
    Congresses can have a say in the regulation of militias. Calling yourself a militia doesn't exempt you from congressional review.

    If congress decides that a Saturday night special isn't a valid weapon for a well regulated militia, they can decide that.

    Congress could also decide that the net value to a well regulated militia of a particular weapon isn't worth the cost of that weapon's existence in the general populace. For example, we don't allow everyone to own a box of grenades - which certainly would be considered a weapon that a well regulated militia would find useful and appropriate. We have similar laws seriously limiting ownership of numerous other weapons, including guns.
     
  14. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked you for the USSC rulings overturned by Heller. You can provide none. You concede the point.
    Disagree? Provide cites and the language overturned by Heller.
    I haven't suggested anything -- I stated the law, and thus, I stated fact.
    And, if you are learned and honest with regard to the subject, you'll admit that Scalia, et al, did indeed address the prefatory clause in Heller.
    Feel free to demonstrate how their treatment of same, and how it relates to the operative clause, is unsound.
    Nothing here negates anything I said.
    The standard is that firearm must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia", defined as weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" and "in common use at the time" - as ultimately judged by the court.
    Thus, if the army/marine corps issues a class of firearm, the right of the citizen to own and use it is protected by the 2nd.
    It could, but that standard is meaningless and does not override the constitutional protections of the 2nd as the power to regulate the militia is restrained by same.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  15. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    637
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you be liberal and christian at the same time?

    The 2nd Amendment "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."

    While the militia districts no longer have much functional use, mine was 25, the security of the free States is now more effectively/efficiently protected by our standing Armies. That said, the security of each individual remains dependent upon their ability to protect themselves. Even Obama had sense enough to state he would take a gun to a knife fight.
    Even with our military might, our government appears incapable of securing our borders. Should we give up our right to protect ourselves knowing full and well that government does not and can not be there when needed to protect us.
    At the time the Constitution was written we had just fought a major war which could not have been fought had the people who comprised the general population not been armed. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the fact that the peoples 'right' to keep and bear arms was what allowed a militia force to be created, and in no way implies that 'right' existent only for the purpose of government use in times of need.
    In civilian life I've never had to shoot anyone, but more than once I have had to present a gun to protect myself from being victimized.
     
  16. saltydancin

    saltydancin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    With the unregulated KKK churchstate cops militia that, playing "man is God" lynching enforcement fabricating misnomers as if it's an immaculate conception of a West Nazi Germany Virginia churchstate where threatening to kill one to their face even if not even present or an immaculate conception of a Federal Lynching churchstate of hate already killing one that isn't even dead as the law of the land of Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality suicidal homicidal sociopsychopathic human farming of the second coming for an Islam fabricated misnomer of an immaculate conception to continue pedophilia slavery with a supreme swastika up Uranus court claim of self defense in killing in that Rosenberg tradition for a nuclear age neanderthal national religion jihad of "death to the infidels" with a perpetual "serve the Pope or die" tautology as one nation under God. .
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please translate this to English. Thank you
     
  18. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    637
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Better yet, please DON'T.
     
  19. saltydancin

    saltydancin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Must be disconcerting when Christians become so liberal from their cross conditioning that it translates to being schizoid.
     
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you have something intelligible and meaningful to say, let us know.
     

Share This Page