SCOTUS

Political discussions
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23170
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: SCOTUS

Post by houndawg »

GannonFan wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:40 am
houndawg wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:25 am

Having no kids doesn't mean you have no skin in that game - the entire nation has skin in the game, big skin.
Obviously. Pretty sure that was implied in my post.
No, it wasn't, by the very fact that you said there were people with no skin in the game.

Are there people who don't realize they have skin in the game? Absolutely.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: SCOTUS

Post by 93henfan »

Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59214
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: SCOTUS

Post by kalm »

Image
Image
Image
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27795
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

93henfan wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:20 am https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6 ... rboXvja_B0

BRUEN OVERTURNED!!!
Strikes down similar laws in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island amd anyone else I left off.. :nod:
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 12387
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: SCOTUS

Post by HI54UNI »

kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:48 am
That's a stupid take.
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. Ronald Reagan, 1975.

Progressivism is cancer

All my posts are satire
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27795
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

HI54UNI wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:03 am
kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:48 am
That's a stupid take.
Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: SCOTUS

Post by 93henfan »

kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:48 am
Pure idiocy right there. Wow. Why would you even want to share that? You’re more intelligent than that. I hope.

There’s a reason your side is getting fucking curb-stomped right now, and there’s your sign.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19832
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: SCOTUS

Post by UNI88 »

BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:12 am
HI54UNI wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:03 am
That's a stupid take.
Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.
Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27795
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:43 am
BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:12 am
Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.
Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.
Kalm can join him for posting that guy’s idiocy..
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27795
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

Yeah, you go right ahead and try that Hochul..

The dumb broad is referring to ‘assault weapons’ magazines when the case ws about everyday concealed carry for self defense, ie handguns. No one is doing concealed carry of MSRs (I don’t need some smartass to post a pic of someone concealing an AR, AK or SBR under a trenchcoat to show it can be done)..
Last edited by BDKJMU on Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19832
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: SCOTUS

Post by UNI88 »

BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:51 am Yeah, you go right ahead and try that Hochul..
She should start with her security detail to demonstrate her commitment.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59214
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: SCOTUS

Post by kalm »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:43 am
BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:12 am
Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.
Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.
He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights. :lol:

Here’s another one that I’m sure will create some more gnashing of teeth…

Virginia Declaration of Rights that Madison copied some verbiage from:

“Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: SCOTUS

Post by 93henfan »

kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:29 pm
UNI88 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:43 am

Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.
He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights. :lol:
It’s really not that difficult if you’ve been through a basic Civics course in school (or even if you can simply read - the US Constitution isn’t that long). The right to bear arms is constitutional and the right to murder an unborn child is not.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27795
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: SCOTUS

Post by BDKJMU »

kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:29 pm
UNI88 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:43 am

Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.
He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights. :lol:

Here’s another one that I’m sure will create some more gnashing of teeth…

Virginia Declaration of Rights that Madison copied some verbiage from:

“Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
‘Well regulated’ in 18th century language doesn’t mean what you think it means.

You should stay in the shallow end of the pool on this topic..
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: SCOTUS

Post by 93henfan »

BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:40 pm
kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:29 pm

He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights. :lol:

Here’s another one that I’m sure will create some more gnashing of teeth…

Virginia Declaration of Rights that Madison copied some verbiage from:

“Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
‘Well regulated’ in 18th century language doesn’t mean what you think it means.

You should stay in the shallow end of the pool on this topic..
Furthermore, the Second Amendment does not require membership in a well regulated Militia to exercise the right to bear Arms. I hear liberals make that misstep all the time. They’re simply wrong.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59214
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: SCOTUS

Post by kalm »

93henfan wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:36 pm
kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:29 pm

He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights. :lol:
It’s really not that difficult if you’ve been through a basic Civics course in school (or even if you can simply read - the US Constitution isn’t that long). The right to bear arms is constitutional and the right to murder an unborn child is not.
Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.

Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.

Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.

I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.

So please, enlighten this gun owner.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: SCOTUS

Post by 93henfan »

kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:41 pm
93henfan wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:36 pm

It’s really not that difficult if you’ve been through a basic Civics course in school (or even if you can simply read - the US Constitution isn’t that long). The right to bear arms is constitutional and the right to murder an unborn child is not.
Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.

Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.

Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.

I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.

So please, enlighten this gun owner.
“…shall not be infringed…”

Not a hard concept to understand. Consider yourself educated. Carry on.
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
User avatar
Col Hogan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 12230
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Col Hogan »

kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:41 pm
93henfan wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:36 pm

It’s really not that difficult if you’ve been through a basic Civics course in school (or even if you can simply read - the US Constitution isn’t that long). The right to bear arms is constitutional and the right to murder an unborn child is not.
Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.

Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.

Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.

I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.

So please, enlighten this gun owner.

Dr Naomi Wolf, a self-described liberal, wrote a wonderful piece on the Second Amendment in anticipation of todays SCOTUS ruling. She addresses a number of issues, but I feel her discussion on language is one of the best I’ve every read. She ends the discussion with a translation of the 18th century English of the Second Amendment into modern-day English.

Grammar too was used to make the case against individual gun ownership. Often, commentators in our circles described the phrasing of the Second Amendment as being so twisted and archaic that no one today could never truly confirm the Founders’ intentions regarding gun ownership by individuals.

Indeed, I heard these truisms so often, that when I actually sat down and read the Second Amendment carefully — as I was writing my 2008 book about the decline of democracies, The End of America — I was startled: because the Second Amendment wasn’t unclear at all.

“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.”

Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.

But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.

The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.

Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:

“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.”

Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/0 ... aomi-wolf/
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59214
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: SCOTUS

Post by kalm »

Col Hogan wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:58 pm
kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:41 pm

Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.

Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.

Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.

I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.

So please, enlighten this gun owner.

Dr Naomi Wolf, a self-described liberal, wrote a wonderful piece on the Second Amendment in anticipation of todays SCOTUS ruling. She addresses a number of issues, but I feel her discussion on language is one of the best I’ve every read. She ends the discussion with a translation of the 18th century English of the Second Amendment into modern-day English.

Grammar too was used to make the case against individual gun ownership. Often, commentators in our circles described the phrasing of the Second Amendment as being so twisted and archaic that no one today could never truly confirm the Founders’ intentions regarding gun ownership by individuals.

Indeed, I heard these truisms so often, that when I actually sat down and read the Second Amendment carefully — as I was writing my 2008 book about the decline of democracies, The End of America — I was startled: because the Second Amendment wasn’t unclear at all.

“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.”

Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.

But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.

The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.

Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:

“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.”

Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/0 ... aomi-wolf/
Yes. I’m aware of this argument. Perhaps I shoukd have said, modernize the 18th century language or STFU? ;)
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: SCOTUS

Post by SDHornet »

HI54UNI wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:03 am
kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:48 am
That's a stupid take.
Yep. Abortion isn't a constitutional right, anyone claiming such is a fucking idiot.
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: SCOTUS

Post by SDHornet »

93henfan wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:20 am https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6 ... rboXvja_B0

BRUEN OVERTURNED!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: SCOTUS

Post by SDHornet »

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: SCOTUS

Post by SDHornet »

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23170
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: SCOTUS

Post by houndawg »

BDKJMU wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:12 am
HI54UNI wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:03 am

That's a stupid take.
Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.
Written with the assumption that the US would have no standing armies or foreign entanglements. :coffee:

Applied only to white males of fighting age. :coffee:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23170
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: SCOTUS

Post by houndawg »

HI54UNI wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:03 am
kalm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:48 am
That's a stupid take.
The Party of Small Gubmint. :oops:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
Post Reply