Air Gun Home :: View topic

Slavia · Moderator

O.K., so the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right (as opposed to a collective right, i.e. for a militia). Discussing that on a gun forum would be like preaching to the choir.

But you have to read this. Scalia (in the majority opinion) uses words like "frivolous" and "grotesque" to describe the logic in the dissenting opinions. At one point he says that the dissenting opinions betray a basic misunderstanding of the role of the court. He also says that the constitution was written for the understanding of voters, and not lawyers.

This stuff is better than daytime soaps.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

thepaladin · Senior Member

Weve been seeing the courts "make" laws instead of interprit them for years. This was a good change. The only thing that worries me is the narrow margin, we won by one vote. And as you said, the majority openion points out that there is no doubt from the period writings and history what was intended. That gun ownership is an individual right the "milishias" refered to were "citizen" organizations like the original "Minite Men". Given all that, still four justices went right down the "party line" and voted against a right inshrined in the bill of rights. Frightening.

23ib0d0n · Moderator

The right to bear arms was written to allow the individual to defend against any tyrant {armed opressor} but eloquently put "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

This is not the case in the US, because the 1934 National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 leave the 'people' powerless to act against any 'tyrant wolf'. The 1986 GCA amendment already has a ruling available. Care to guess which way the wind blew?

Just in case you were wondering about the ramifications of what actual liberties are at stake, there were folks in Waco that could tell you more.

A quality medium will of course be required for the séance ceremony.

"Shall not be infringed" could/should only be interpreted one way. What is gained through 'interpretation'?

The founding fathers understood history well. The Federalist Papers are a very important insight into what reasons were behind the original ideas and what liberty is supposed to be.

Patrick Henry stated;
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government; lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." and for good reason.

From what I have read and studied, the original intent was a non interference law structure. Do as you wish, so long as what you are doing infringes upon nobody else.
`
Unfortunately for 'we the people', the current zeitgeist approves only the most advanced NWO agendas for mass media distribution, and utilizes the especially heavy handed 'governing tactics' specific to sheeple control infringements.
Even worse is this 'new generation' of thought police interfering with every aspect of daily strife . . .

The agenda has already been uploaded and installed, but 'We the people' have a virus that can wipe out that NWO agenda. The truth. The truth is that NWO put together the Third Reich, desires population control, fabricated the energy crisis, then orchestrated terrorist plots to create a unified enemy out of

terrorists.

So what is actually gained through interpretation becomes obvious.

Sheeple governed into

No way, not in the US, that just can't happen here.

Can it?

broommaster2000 · Moderator

One can also blow up a subject.

thepaladin · Senior Member

Just remember, "Work Makes Free".

Someone should remind the voters that "those who trade a little freedom for a little security, will lose both."
They have heard it, but they don't, think about it.

Oh, by the way, we may not have to worry about the people hearing these things soon, congress has brought up the so called "fairness act" again. Even though there was supposed to be a years moretorium on it.

Oh well. Freedom was nice while it lasted.

AirGunEric · Site Admin

Scalia is pretty entertaining in alot of ways:

"And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong..."

"-Worse still, the phrase
“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word
“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:
“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of
“bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying
“He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled
the bucket and died.” -"

"JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly
showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently
used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9;
Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact
that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context
does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any
event, we have given many sources where the phrase was
used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection
appears to include (who knows how many times) the
idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant.
The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms . . .
for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are
“expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE
STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state
constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment
that identify private-use purposes for which the
individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That
analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that
contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this
side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some
courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we
think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit
the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self defense”
or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying
phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is
not limited to military use."

and so on...

Also- which "fairness act" is thepaladin referring- the class action, small business regulatory, or bail-bonds fairness act? I'm a bit of a loss on this one.

And the comment about people "following the party line" while totally disregarding what appears to be the most solid reading/"interpretation" of the Second Amendment thus far, is, as pointed out- disturbing. Forget logic, forget evidence, let's just overstep the bounds of our role as justices of the Supreme Court and "do what we feel like doing" with our vote (the minority in this case).

Slavia · Moderator

I am, of course, prejudiced regarding the second amendment. Still, it seems to me that Scalia was evaluating the D.C. law against the constitution (and the body of thought that generated it). This is his job. To offer an opinion in an effort to cure or prevent social ills (as in the case of the dissenting opinion) is not the job of the Supreme Court. If the constitution needs to be changed, there is a mechanism to do that, and it doesn't include judges or lawyers.

I've heard the argument that the constitution is an archaic device written for the needs of another time (thus justifying an end run around it). Instead I believe that it was written in response to human nature, which hasn't changed one iota. So that makes me an "originalist." I believe that the recent decision was also significant because it drew from "original intent" far more than any other case in recent U.S. history.

So anyway, back to the theme of colorful language. Before you start the grill on the 4th, read the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm). There are some great phrases in there:

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation" (Describing the reasons for separating from England).

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance" (this is about the other King George, not the one we've got now).

No slight to our English cousins intended. I bring it up because they used some great phrases back then, and Scalia is bearing the torch now.

Slavia · Moderator

And it's not just great documents that make me glad to be here: There is a law requiring that votes be counted in public. So on election night I go down to the courthouse, talk with the candidates, and graze on the buffet. A government of the people, by the people, for the people, and free pizza. Well, O.K. It's not free, but it's still way better than the other uses they find for my extorted tax money.

23ib0d0n · Moderator

thepaladin · Senior Member

By "party line" I was refering to the four justices who always vote for the "so called" liberial or progressive line no matter what the constitution actually says. The second ammendment challange was a forgone conclusio to them, even though there is really very little doubt of what was actually intended by the founders. They tend to "legislate" from the bench instead of interpreting decisions and making sure they are in line with the law as they are supposed to, while leaving legeslating to the congress.

The fairness doctrion is a law that says broadcast stations (radio and TV) may not allow any openion to be expressed without making sure that ALL opposing oppenions get equal time. Back in the late 70s when Ronald Readan ran for president, if one of his old movies ran, TV stations were technecally required to time his screen time and give that much screen time to ALL other candiates. The act had kept openion programs and such off radio and TV all along. It was repealed in the 80s . Since then we've seen the rise in talk radio and openion programing. The Dems are trying to bring it back. This would shut down talk radio and a lot of TV.

That was my point. You've all gone over the openions and seen the logic behind the majority ruling and the convoluted strained reasoning that the minority went through to try and oppose it. I'm just concerned that the majority, was so small.... one vote.

Rogerflat · Silver Status Member

23ib0d0n,

Your previous post was probably the most extraneous reference to Jews and Nazis that I've ever heard, perhaps bested only by Peter from Office Space who adds the incongruous statement to his argument "The Nazi's had pieces of flare...and they made the Jews wear it."

Slavia · Moderator

4950cycle · Member

This is good news, yet scarey. One vote Hmmmm. Mad

thepaladin · Senior Member

I know we don't want to get into politics, so I won't.....I'm stepping away from that...see.

Now, the two justices that are closest to retirement were both in the minority, now we just need to hope their replacements will be closer to the majority. Stevens is 88 and Ginsburg is 75.

Then you get to Scalia, who is 72 and Kennedy the perenial swing vote who is 71. As has been said, the next few years could be a "bumpy ride". There is a lot on the line.

4950cycle · Member

You don't have to worry about any political arguement from me. I've got a pretty good idea you and I are already on the same page. I noticed one of the judges you mentioned had a Jewish last name. I could never understand why the Jewish Americans have been predomenently liberal democrats, and may I add anti gun. Them of all peoples sould understand that a citizen should be on almost equal footing with his/her government defencewise. Your government is a little less likely to barge into your living room when it just may cost them.