And if you had read the OP you would have know that this thread is about the 2nd Amendment as written and approved by Congress and the different states. Not about ulterior legislation enacted by the Supreme Court.
Are we all speaking the same language? Did definitions of words overnight have different meanings from the original founders script?
@Golem When armed thugs break into your home to steal all your stuff and rape you are you going to: 1) defeat them with the power of love 2) call police? Oh wait, they’ll be defunded soon you’ll have to rely on your unarmed neighborhood watch 3) use your Star Trek phaser on stun to render them unconscious please enlighten me
Do you have anything to say about the topic of this thread? If not, you are more than welcome to open a new thread, and I'll be happy to respond to any questions. BTW, if thugs break into my home to rape me, they have very poor taste.
So you don't want to talk about the actual SCOTUS decision that upholds the 2nd amendment (AS WRITTEN) for right to own a weapon that shoots down your entire thread on your claim that the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to own a weapon. Proving you are wrong You don't want to talk about your claim that Scalia legislated this from the bench, when he didn't. It was a 5-4 decision by the SCOTUS Proving you are wrong You don't want to talk about Your post about an individual right to own arms doesn't exist. But that changed with the Heller decision. Not to the 2nd A as written. When it was proved to you the Heller decision didn't legislate anything. They only upheld the 2nd amendment as written. Proving you are wrong Which would mean, if you actually did any research, (as you claim) you are knowingly falsifying information for your own political agenda. As per usual.
There is not much to discuss about Heller. It's the law of the land (for now). But it's not the topic here. Or rather, it's not the specific topic. All these threads (English 101, English 102, History 101, History 102... and others to come) taken together, demonstrate that the linguistic and historical reasoning given by Scalia in Heller is completely flawed. Each one of these threads debunks one of Scalia's points in his reasoning. But we must address one point at a time.
Heller, in part, actually addresses the premise of your OP. Nice attempt at trying to define yourself into a debate win, but that's a big fail on your part.
Of course! Happy to see you noticed. Heller addresses four major very relevant historical and linguistic points. All of them rebutted by historians and linguists. And for which I have created four different threads. The one you are seeing right now is only part three in the series. Links to the previous two are on the OP.
They weren't rebutted. That's why Heller is law and your theory was rejected. In fact, Heller rebuts your OP directly, and decisively.
1. There is no new legislation as claimed by you. 5 Justices upheld the constitution as written. 2. Scalise was only one of 5 who agreed. He legislated nothing from the bench as you claimed 3. This is not the law of the land (for now). It has been the law of the land since its inception and no claim against has succeeded. 4. The Heller case only supported the Constitution as written. It decided nothing. 5. The outcome of the Heller case determined (again) just like every other attempt otherwise, Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. The End
Just... saying something, does not make it so. I claim there is, and I have 4 threads that prove it. They address four of the most basic sine qua non arguments that Scalia used. And they are based on Amicus Briefs (and other papers) by the most relevant historians, philologists and linguists in the country today. This is one of those threads. If you can't rebut the arguments on the OP, then the OP prevails. And then there are three more to go. But you haven't even addressed the arguments in this OP. To discuss Heller, you would have to read it. These threads make it easier for you. BTW. no. Scalia is not just one. He wrote the opinion! The others simply voted for or against it. Anyway... this thread is not about Scalia (even though it rebuts him). It's about the 2nd Amendment.
You mean you have 4 threads showing your opinion. Yet the OP already failed. 5-4 You want to reargue a case that was already decided. I did read it and have cited such in quotes. Justice Stevens also wrote his opinion to be voted on. He wrote “Your interest in keeping and bearing a certain firearm may diminish my interest in being and feeling safe from armed violence. Later, Stevens considered that to be a self inflected wound. He lost the vote because he went in the wrong direction. Just because you don't feel safe, it does nothing to diminish my rights.
I have 4 threads offering expert opinions. If you are unable to rebut the expert opinion (not that I expected you to... since nobody else has), that means it would appear I have made my case.
Quoting these so called expert opinions that have failed every time they have been tested over 200 years doesn't make your case. No matter how many threads you create. Quoting the actual laws and actual findings of the SCOTUS, is rebutting your case. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't qualify you to claim you made your case. It just means you have no ability to overcome whats already been decided. And its pretty telling you have come to conclusion you can't win the argument when you post something silly like, if you can't be convinced otherwise, nobody has been able to rebut your claim. What is more noticeable than not, is your continued lack of response or acknowledgement to portions of post you have decided to eliminate in your responses. For example, You don't like what Stevens stated when trying to make his case Your interest in keeping and bearing a certain firearm may diminish my interest in being and feeling safe from armed violence. because it was an outrageous claim that had absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It was about his feelings, not the constitution which is why he only received 3 votes. He didn't have a case to stand on so he reached for something personal to sell. As he stated later himself, he self inflected his own wound. So if you're going to debate a topic, knowingly leaving out comments you don't want to answer, is the real indicator of your real conviction. Had you an argument to make, you would have made it. Which means (as you clearly stated) if you are unable to rebut the post provided you, then I have made my case.
No, what it means is with 4 threads and hundreds of post, you couldn't find one single person that you have had any success in making your case. You have this self proclaimed idea, if people don't agree with you, and you don't find their information to your liking, you write it off as a win. Most people who can't find one single person to agree with them usually concludes they haven't made their case.
I moved this debate to the thread where we are discussing the historical aspects behind the 2nd A. I urge you to read the OP of this thread. They did have a standing army. What do you think General George Washington was a General in? They simply didn't trust it would be able to accomplish the job of defending the country, like the one we have now is. Of course it was. We're talking about the 18th Century. It was most certainly necessary back then. I have no idea what you think you are disagreeing with. WHAT is "incorrect"? Only if they are not native English speakers. Of course they didn't want a bunch of unorganized individuals defending the country. Thereby the idiom "well regulated". And this also demonstrates why the 2nd A does not address in any form an individual right to own weapons. It doesn't limit it, it doesn't affirm it, it doesn't grant it,... it just doesn't address it. BTW, who forms part of the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd A is explained here. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ I still can't believe that anybody would actually say nonsense of this caliber.