History 101: Why the 2nd Amendment?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Golem, Mar 23, 2021.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  2. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What ulterior legislation are you claiming and how was it enacted by the SCOTUS
     
  3. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are we all speaking the same language? Did definitions of words overnight have different meanings from the original founders script?
     
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Heller! Not the topic here, though.
     
  5. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @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
     
    Robert likes this.
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Darthcervantes likes this.
  7. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am with your definitions. All the way.
     
  8. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    good one! I laughed. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
     
    Golem likes this.
  9. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  11. 21Bronco

    21Bronco Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2020
    Messages:
    15,623
    Likes Received:
    9,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  12. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  13. 21Bronco

    21Bronco Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2020
    Messages:
    15,623
    Likes Received:
    9,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They weren't rebutted. That's why Heller is law and your theory was rejected.

    In fact, Heller rebuts your OP directly, and decisively.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  14. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  15. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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
     
    21Bronco likes this.
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  17. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  19. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "shall not be infringed"
     
  20. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They appear to be very successful here, seeing how you can't rebut even address any of them.
     
  22. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    The Last American and 21Bronco like this.
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2021
  24. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    History 101: Why the 2nd Amendment?

    History is why. Lets begin with the history of democide.
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  25. The Last American

    The Last American Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2021
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    692
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I've been saying this since the first day I read this pointless thread.
     

Share This Page