Random Thought of the Day

[VB]

If you are referring to me, that was sarcasm.

Yeah, but you're still an asshole





Joking.

[Altimeter]

True, true.

[P-Chop]

Fred,

Fix your fucking intro.........
















and get me a beer while you're up!

[RockOut]

If you are referring to me, that was sarcasm.

I'd say he was referring to Fred.

But you are an asshole.

[Recon133]

Ahso, me asho, you asho, everybody asho.

[Falschirmjaeger]

I love how so-called "experts," including Tucker, seek to re-interpret language that on it's face is clear.

the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE. Wholly and severally, the definition of the PEOPLE is unequivocal. The Second Amendment affirms without evasion that the right to bear arms lies with the people and not with the State, or with the Federal Government.

The justification for that right has caused numerous attempts to limit that right because it is poorly written.

Yes, I say it again, it was poorly written.

But at the end of the day, it is not lawyer or the state to which ultimate sovereignty belongs, it is the people as a whole.

Tucker was initially anti-federalist, and only changed his position after the Bill of Rights was added. But, his anti-federalist sentiment prevailed. His notion was that the scope of the Federal right to bear arms was to be interpreted in a limited fashion, with what constitutes a "militia" being left to the states.

It was up to the individual states then to determine what (and who) constituted the militia.

His naivete belies itself however as he envisions no federal army, but only the militias of the several states to be called in case of emergency.

Which brings us back to WHY the 2d Amendment was poorly written. It was written in this way to imply that the states could define what a militia was, while simultaneously guaranteeing the right of the INDIVIDUAL to bear arms.

In this manner, the constitution was ratified, and the individual right to bear arms was ensconced in perpetuity in the Constitution.

In other words, the Framers were exceedingly clever, in that they gave the people a right that intelligent people would understand, and that dummies would vote for.

Which one are you?

[Fred]

I love how so-called "experts," including Tucker, seek to re-interpret language that on it's face is clear.

Tucker's interpretation of the Second Amendment is the first known interpretation of the Second Amendment by a well respected and influential jurist. His was not a reinterpretation. His was the first interpretation that was recorded.

There is no doubt that Tucker, Jefferson, Madison and the other Democratic Republicans believed in a natural right to self defense. However, there is also little doubt that the Federalists, who controlled the First U. S. Congress and wrote the Second Amendment, were butt monkeys, who didn't share that view.

We know, for example, that at one point, most of the Senators wanted to do exactly what the Anti-Federalist feared. They wanted to disarm the militia by neglecting it.

That may have been one of the reasons Tucker, Jefferson, Madison and many others left the Federalist Party.

[RockOut]

http://www.unf-unf.de/batman.swf

[Recon133]

I put an 8" filleting knife through my thumb yesterday carving pumpkins for the grandkids. Damn thing won't quit bleeding, so now I have to get a tetnis shot and probably a stitch or two. Whoopeeeee!

[Altimeter]

I bet you scared the shit out of your grandkids! Can you still ride the bad motascoota?

[Falschirmjaeger]

Tucker's interpretation of the Second Amendment is the first known interpretation of the Second Amendment by a well respected and influential jurist. His was not a reinterpretation. His was the first interpretation that was recorded.

There is no doubt that Tucker, Jefferson, Madison and the other Democratic Republicans believed in a natural right to self-defense. However, there is also little doubt that the Federalists, who controlled the First U. S. Congress and wrote the Second Amendment, were butt monkeys, who didn't share that view.

We know, for example, that at one point, most of the Senators wanted to do exactly what the Anti-Federalist feared. They wanted to disarm the militia by neglecting it.

That may have been one of the reasons Tucker, Jefferson, Madison and many others left the Federalist Party.

I think it is pretty clear that I was including Tucker in a group that is still existent today. Rather than making a prima facie case for why the Second Amendment is a bad idea, we get these ninnies who think that they can make a paper thin argument to spin the plain language embodied in the Constitution.

Now, I for one swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and that includes defending it against revisionists who would twist it for their own agendas.

Now your pseudo-intellectual blather is starting to piss me off. I can forgive misunderstandings based on earnest attempts to take on a topic, but wilful stupidity is another thing.

Great, you read some Tucker. I'm impressed, most people have never heard of him. However, to propose that the Framer's intent, just years after fighting for our independence was to limit a society's last protection against tyranny, is ludicrous.

The greatest fear of our founding fathers was that tyranny would raise it's head again. Nor were they naive (I wish it were easier to type diaeresis) enough to believe that relegating such an enormous responsibility to the sometimes petulant states would be sufficient.

With the fears of barely suppressed Royalist sentiment in the South, and the coincidental backlash against Federal authority everywhere, ludicrous is the only word that would describe the idea that the Second Amendment was anything other than an attempt to ensure that sovereignty would lie in perpetuity with the people themselves.

Now an argument that *might* hold some water is that the Framers were trying to check the mercurial emotions of the "mob." There are plenty of examples of these attempts, including first and foremost a rejection of direct democracy.

That argument fails however when one considers that an organized militia becomes an agent of the state. Once that happens, an unorganized militia devolves to its most basic form: a loose collection of armed citizens, organized as needed, for the period of emergency. When the people are denied the legitimacy of standing militias, outside the influence of the government, then an independent armed citizen is the only remedy.

In short, Henderson's dissent was specious, and the majority opinion in Heller v. DC was the right one. The operative clause of the Second Amendment is controlling, and the use "the people" is clear based on other usage in the Constitution.

Now for the ad hominem attack:

Whatever law school you went to should give you your money back. Chasing ambulances and duelling with your peers who graduated last in their class seems more your speed.

[Fred]

The operative clause of the Second Amendment is controlling, and the use "the people" is clear based on other usage in the Constitution.

You need to learn the rules of legal interpretation existent at the time the Second Amendment was made.

[RH]

You need to learn the rules of legal interpretation existent at the time the Second Amendment was made.

Hey assmunch...go play in your boyfriends backyard...and get the fuck out of ours!

[Skysoldier]

We haven't banned this idiot Fred yet?

[Falschirmjaeger]

You need to learn the rules of legal interpretation existent at the time the Second Amendment was made.

Huh, that's funny. Considering that the entire system of the nascent US system of jurisprudence had a big question mark next to it, I would challenge you to provide any consistent support for that. Anecdotal evidence is surely to be available, supporting as well as contradicting your argument.

But the funny thing is, the Supremes seem to agree with me, so how about you admit your frustration at being wrong and let it go?

(This is what happens when you study law in a state that is based on French law. You really should have picked a better state.)

And BTW, 'Paint it Black' was the Stone's seminal work.