Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Right to Bear Arms? What History Tells Us.

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

  • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
    Do you think that a gun is an instrument that can be used to kill game?
    Only if you can play it very very well. I've never witnessed an animal felled by Beethoven's 5th before.
    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by General Staff View Post
      Only if you can play it very very well. I've never witnessed an animal felled by Beethoven's 5th before.
      You have never witnessed me trying to play a musical instrument.

      Comment


      • LoL, well, my imagination runs riot.

        You, in some sunlit woodland glade, gun stringed and well-tuned and the deer tethered, starting up Beethoven's 5th.
        Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
        (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
          Because the application of the English Bill of Rights protected the keeping of the gun for the lawful purposes of self defense and defense of ones home.
          So, the game law violated the English Bill of Rights, because it prohibited possession of a gun? What was the ruling of the appeals court?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
            Are you a proponent of the "pure collective right" theory of the 2nd Amendment which holds that the 2nd Amend serves only to protect the right of the states to arm the militia in the absence of adequate federal action?
            Yep. The Amendment was obviously meant to be dubious. So, I'll just go with the rule that, "the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it."

            The cause which moved the legislator was the security of a free state, so the doubt regarding the meaning of the word "people" should be resolved in favor of that cause. The security of the states is best advanced by the states having the freedom to keep and bear arms.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
              So, the game law violated the English Bill of Rights, because it prohibited possession of a gun? What was the ruling of the appeals court?

              You misunderstood my reply, I was referring to the decision of the appeals court.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                You misunderstood my reply, I was referring to the decision of the appeals court.
                What was the ruling of the Appeals Court?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                  So, I'll just go with the rule that, "the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it."
                  Yes, but the problem inherent with that is when the law is dubious because the length of the words in it passeth the understanding of an ordinary citizen.
                  Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                  (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                    Yep. The Amendment was obviously meant to be dubious. So, I'll just go with the rule that, "the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it." .
                    Too bad, because at least with the sophisticated collective right thesis, some legit legal arguments can be made. Not so the pure collective right thesis.

                    Can you name one case or commentator who adopted such a view prior to the 20th Century?

                    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                    The cause which moved the legislator was the security of a free state, so the doubt regarding the meaning of the word "people" should be resolved in favor of that cause. The security of the states is best advanced by the states having the freedom to keep and bear arms.
                    You think so? Then why did the Senate deep six a proposed amendment which would have allowed the states to arm the militia in the absence of adequate federal provision?

                    And please, you can cease your pretense of relying on rules of statutory construction. I know they are mangeled recitations taken out of context in order to mold into your argument and are of no merit whatsoever. What is more important is that I discern some quantum of knowledge on the 2nd Amendment which leads me to believe that you know that this line of argument is bogus. So no more "pop quizzes" ok? Let us have a civil and intelligent discussion of the 2nd without games... and you might actually learn something.
                    Last edited by legaleagle_45; 20 Nov 08, 18:57.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                      What was the ruling of the Appeals Court?
                      It reversed the conviction as for the reasons I previously provided to you.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                        It reversed the conviction as for the reasons I previously provided to you.
                        Just give me the Appellate Court's ruling. If you have it.
                        Last edited by Miss You; 20 Nov 08, 19:24.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                          Not so the pure collective right thesis.
                          Is that a reference to some sort of Communism? Or RRR Republicanism on a Congregational basis?
                          Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                          (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                            Can you name one case or commentator who adopted such a view prior to the 20th Century?
                            Yes. But, I won't. If you're going to disregard case law and revisit the original language of the Constitution, the words shouldn't be interpreted according to case law or commentators. You can't have your cake and eat it too, unless of course you're a judicial activist, like that guy on the Supreme Court does.

                            Then why did the Senate deep six a proposed amendment which would have allowed the states to arm the militia in the absence of adequate federal provision?
                            It doesn't matter, because we apply the rules of construction to the words that were enacted, not the ones that were not enacted.

                            cease...relying on rules of statutory construction. I
                            Can't do that. Its the only legitimate way to ascertain the will of lawmakers.
                            Last edited by Miss You; 20 Nov 08, 19:43.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                              Yes. But, I won't because, the Constitution shouldn't be interpreted according to cases or commentators, .
                              Funny we have been doing that for an awfully long time.

                              Yet you do so according to your precious rules of statutory construction which are themselves established by cases and commentators. Thus, if you disregard cases and commentators dealing with the direct interpretation of the Constitution you must likewise disregard cases and commentators which establish the rules of construction for the interpretation of the Constitution... both are equally suspect.

                              Further, I believe you will not provide such a case or provide such a commentator, because no reliable one exists. You tried with Tucker, to no avail, I suspect that anything you would come up with would be just as erroneous.

                              Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                              Can't do that. Its the only legitimate way to ascertain the will of lawmakers.
                              Those rules developed by cases and commentatore which you misconstrue and apply incorrectly? Please give me a break. You are not dealing with a neophyte.
                              Last edited by legaleagle_45; 20 Nov 08, 20:08.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                                Is that a reference to some sort of Communism? Or RRR Republicanism on a Congregational basis?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X