Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice American Style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Interpreting a text of the constitution is changing its content and this can not be done by judges or politicians, only by the people .

    The constitution is always clear : it prohibites slavery,there is no way to interprete this in the meaning that slavery is allowed .

    A text (=a part ) of the constitution can only be changed by an amendment, not by political interpretation .
    Which is why the constitution in its test clearly states my right to possess nuclear arms and says nothing about how some arms are to be treated differently than others. It's clear and blatant that preventing my possession of nuclear weapons is simply unconstitutional.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Simply pointing out that the constitution is never taken literally by any major group in America. However, there are many who believe there is no interpretation done regarding the constitution - they see interpretation as the purview of activist judges and progressives.

    .
    Interpreting a text of the constitution is changing its content and this can not be done by judges or politicians, only by the people .

    The constitution is always clear : it prohibites slavery,there is no way to interprete this in the meaning that slavery is allowed .

    A text (=a part ) of the constitution can only be changed by an amendment, not by political interpretation .

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    I appreciate your take, I have to admit I was befuddled by your approach to the OP. You aptly made the argument for banning all guns, reducing the argument to the absurd and comparing pro gun rights argument to the old adage "if you can own a gun why not a nuclear bomb". Which didn't seem to jive with past posts.
    So could you tell us, just how are we to defend our rights if we can't defend our rights?
    The question of the age.

    Simply put, it depends on who you are protecting them from. We empower the state because we don't trust the common man. But how do you protect your rights from the state if you are prohibited from approaching the state from even ground?

    Each generation tweaks and interprets our rights differently. Time will tell how it results.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Simply pointing out that the constitution is never taken literally by any major group in America. However, there are many who believe there is no interpretation done regarding the constitution - they see interpretation as the purview of activist judges and progressives.

    Simply put, the constitutionality of arms control is dependent upon an individuals interpretation of the constitution and their political views mixed together. We look at places like Oakland and think "Jesus, a revolver for self defense makes sense", but the same person can also think "You know, having any story capable of selling any arm at will doesn't seem very smart...".

    I'm a staunch supporter of gun ownership. But there are plenty of gun owners who don't recognize the logical failings frequently employed in the arguments used to justify that right. I dislike hypocrisy, especially when it's supporting my own cause.
    I appreciate your take, I have to admit I was befuddled by your approach to the OP. You aptly made the argument for banning all guns, reducing the argument to the absurd and comparing pro gun rights argument to the old adage "if you can own a gun why not a nuclear bomb". Which didn't seem to jive with past posts.
    So could you tell us, just how are we to defend our rights if we can't defend our rights?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    I have to ask what's the point of your whole nuclear weapons argument? Its clear you don't actually want one. Are you just trying to get somebody to admit that you shouldn't own one so you can say "See they really do believe in limitations. They're hypocrites!"? I'm legitimately curious.
    Simply pointing out that the constitution is never taken literally by any major group in America. However, there are many who believe there is no interpretation done regarding the constitution - they see interpretation as the purview of activist judges and progressives.

    Simply put, the constitutionality of arms control is dependent upon an individuals interpretation of the constitution and their political views mixed together. We look at places like Oakland and think "Jesus, a revolver for self defense makes sense", but the same person can also think "You know, having any story capable of selling any arm at will doesn't seem very smart...".

    I'm a staunch supporter of gun ownership. But there are plenty of gun owners who don't recognize the logical failings frequently employed in the arguments used to justify that right. I dislike hypocrisy, especially when it's supporting my own cause.

    Leave a comment:


  • frisco17
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    This completely resolves the questions regarding nukes.
    They can be prohibited and such a prohibition would not violate the 2nd Amendment.
    I know that. I was asking why he's pushing that particular line of reasoning so hard. Doesn't quite make sense to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    I have to ask what's the point of your whole nuclear weapons argument? Its clear you don't actually want one. Are you just trying to get somebody to admit that you shouldn't own one so you can say "See they really do believe in limitations. They're hypocrites!"? I'm legitimately curious.


    The Heller decision, which I quoted earlier, explicitly addresses this issue saying that the 2nd Amendment, like other rights, is not unlimited.

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


    This completely resolves the questions regarding nukes.
    They can be prohibited and such a prohibition would not violate the 2nd Amendment.

    Leave a comment:


  • frisco17
    replied
    I have to ask what's the point of your whole nuclear weapons argument? Its clear you don't actually want one. Are you just trying to get somebody to admit that you shouldn't own one so you can say "See they really do believe in limitations. They're hypocrites!"? I'm legitimately curious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    Actually the burden of proof is on you. I answered with the Preamble, you need to show how you owning a nuclear weapon would:

    1. Establish justice.
    2. Insure domestic tranquility.
    3. Provide for the common defense.
    4. Promote the general welfare of the people.
    The preamble didn't answer the question.

    If you want, I could provide some very subjective but valid answers to your questions, but that results in (again) people interpreting meaning, and still does nothing to explain why progressives want to subvert the constitution by denying people's right to bear arms.

    Also answer this question that I asked earlier:

    Where does it say in the Constitution that you can indiscriminately kill anyone?
    So it doesn't say you can, yet it doesn't say you can't own the means to possibly do so either. I can indiscriminately kill with many things which are not banned, making it a moot point. Unless you believe that something that can indiscriminately kill is not covered by the constitution?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    You guys may find this article thought provoking.

    http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...-be-registered.

    So taken in that respect if DoD can make his own...

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    - it comes to you to prove that the constitution says nuclear arms are a no-no while other arms are allowed.
    Actually the burden of proof is on you. I answered with the Preamble, you need to show how you owning a nuclear weapon would:

    1. Establish justice.
    2. Insure domestic tranquility.
    3. Provide for the common defense.
    4. Promote the general welfare of the people.

    Also answer this question that I asked earlier:

    Where does it say in the Constitution that you can indiscriminately kill anyone?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    "Gotcha"?

    I quoted the Preamble which is the opening statement of the Constitution.

    You owning a nuclear weapon for "self defense" would not 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense' or 'promote the general welfare of the people'.

    You would be killing thousands of innocent people.

    Which leads to the next question:

    Where does it say in the Constitution that you can indiscriminately kill anyone?
    But by owning the weapon I'm not killing anyone, just like I'm not shooting anyone with my shotgun just by owning it.

    And since there is nothing in the constitution saying I cannot own a nuclear weapon - and the 2nd amendment confirms I possess the right to bear arms with no regard to their nature - it comes to you to prove that the constitution says nuclear arms are a no-no while other arms are allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    So it doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. Gotcha.
    "Gotcha"?

    I quoted the Preamble which is the opening statement of the Constitution.

    You owning a nuclear weapon for "self defense" would not 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense' or 'promote the general welfare of the people'.

    You would be killing thousands of innocent people.

    Which leads to the next question:

    Where does it say in the Constitution that you can indiscriminately kill anyone?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    So it doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. Gotcha.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Where does the constitution say it only applies to arms that can't kill indiscriminately?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X