A denial of certiorari is only that and has no other effect. It does not set a precedent from SCOTUS. Fail.
I have said again and again in this, and all four threads I opened about the 2nd A, that I have no interest in discussing the legal arguments. I have debunked the Linguistic and Historical arguments (actually, I repeated the rebuttal by the country's leading historians, linguists and philologists) that Scalia postulated. Whether they had any bearing or not in the decision, that's beyond the scope of these threads. All I have done is demonstrate that they are made up nonsense. And it looks like all discussions end with the other side trying to change the subject, like you just did. Which seems to indicate that I have been successful.
Quoting the above you said : Now when its pointed out that in fact that is not simply a legal misinterpretation its indicative that you've never actually read the case because they spelled it out for you just like I did IN the case, you have this to say: So you're willing to discuss legalities when you think it goes your way. When it doesn't you dissemble. “When I am Weaker than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom because that is according to my principles.” You have debunked nothing, and even went so far as to offer that no one studied grammar prior to the 1960s, or that there would be no authorities to cite on same from the time of the founding. Its ludicrous.
My interpretation for EVERYTHING I have said... every single word... is based on Historical and Linguistic arguments. But, as I said: gun advocates in this thread deem anything in Heller that doesn't conform to their dogma as "heresy". And that includes Scalia's lame attempt at making very lame Historical and Linguistic arguments. I'm not discussing legalities... at all. I'm discussing Historical and Linguistic arguments that are WRONGLY stated in the Heller decision. Whether or not Supreme Court Justices even NEED to make any sense in their "reasoning" is a legal topic about which I have not commented. Just like you haven't commented on the Historic and Linguistic arguments I submitted.
Sure sure, the post on top here is all about linguistics, not you agreeing with a poster who didn't read demonstrating you didn't either. Sure sure sure. Keep telling yourself that. In point of fact I responded to Goldfarb's horseshit, you have simply ignored my response.
Yep... I don't know what post you're talking about, but I always assume that the arguments ANYBODY makes are valid, unless I have reasons to believe they are wrong. In your case, and in anything pertaining to the topic of this thread, I not only have reasons... I've proven them.
The post I've quoted for you now 3 times. Gosh WHAT post could I POSSIBLY be talking about, when I note it for you in the post you're replying to.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/health/gun-deaths-disparities/index.html There have been more than 1 million gun deaths since 1990 and the gun homicide rate nearly doubled between 2014 and 2021. African Americans have been disproportionately affected. But according to some here the 14th Amendment limits what the government can do to protect the demographic that the amendment was intended to protect.
The 'Crazy, Right-Wing Shooter' Myth John Lott, RealClearPolitics If you only read the New York Times editorials, you’d believe that political violence in America is a “right-wing” problem. The Times has been warning of violence from the right for years, but on Nov. 19 and 26, they wrote two long editorials making these claims. The violence stems from the lies “enthusiastically spread” by Republican politicians. Democrats’ only complicity was their $53 million in spending on “far-right fringe candidates in the primaries.” The fringe candidates, it was hoped, would be easier to beat in the general election. Both editorials mention the mass murderer in Buffalo, New York, as a political right-winger. But they have been doing that all year. In May, the Times claimed he was of the right because he was racist and listened to a video on a “site known for hosting right-wing extremism.” The headline in the Times announced: “Replacement theory, espoused by the suspect in the Buffalo massacre, has been embraced by some right-wing politicians and commentators.” You wouldn’t know it from reading the Times, but the Buffalo killer was yet another mass murderer motivated by environmentalism. In his manifesto, the Buffalo mass murderer self-identifies as an “eco-fascist national socialist” and a member of the “mild-moderate authoritarian left.” He expresses concern that minority immigrants have too many children and will damage the environment. “The invaders are the ones overpopulating the world,” he writes. “Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”. . . .
The 14th amendment, among other things, applies the bill of rights against the states. That means the 2nd amendment applies against the states the same way it does against the feds. Let it go already.
You choose to make a false statement. 2014: 4.44/100, 67.4% firearms = 2.99/100k 2019: 5.07/100k 66.2% firearms = 3.35/100k 2020, murder rate jumped to 6.52. 68.2% firearms = 4.44/100k 2021: 6.8/100k, 69.2% firearm = 4.70/100k Now tell us - what changed in 2020/2021? African Americans commit ~60% of murders, a rate more than 10x that of whites. So... duh. Correct. The constitutions, intentionally, takes certain policy choices off the table. Don't like it? Amend it.
It sure has to do with the freedom of those kids. They will never enjoy the freedom of growing up. Or the freedom of the families to SEE them grow up. Or the freedom of society to have them grow up to be productive members... But, of course, none of that is of any concern to the pro-gun lobby.
The deaths of those children is horribly tragic. One bad guy can do irreparable harm. It is up to us all to ensure that the harm does not spread to include damaging our Constitutional rights.
Only concern I have seen about the whole episode from gun advocates is that they fear that their access to assault weapons may be limited because of it. Not out of concern for the children themselves, or their families, or for any future victims of gun violence. And your original post proves it.
The anti-gun left relies on fallacious appeals to emotion to move their mindless agenda forward because they know there's no rational, reasoned argument for the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions they seek to lay on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding. To this end, the (D)ishonest are forced to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.
Well you have now. Those deaths are terribly tragic. The damage done to them and their families is horrific. In their memory, we must ensure that their loss doesn't get used by radical left wingers to do more damage by suppressing sacred American freedoms.
"Rates of firearm homicide for both men and women nearly doubled between 2014 and 2021, but men were still more than five times more likely to die than women." https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/health/gun-deaths-disparities/index.html 7,803 gun homicides in 2014. 12,520 gun homicides in 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/249803/number-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/ The journalist probably meant that the total number of gun homicides nearly doubled. But a 57% increase in the gun homicide rate is not good news at all.
I have not. And certainly not from you. They were "tragic" for gun advocates because... some... gun legislation (albeit limited) came from it. At this pace it will take a great number of them to give up their lives to overcome these people's fixation with guns. However, that's besides the point of this thread which is that the 2nd A, as written and approved by the states, has NOTHING to do with any of that. A fact that won't keep gun advocates from blaming their fixation with guns on it instead of on their own nuttiness.
