General Discussion

TrollBuster9090

(6,111 posts)

78. The Supreme Court didn''t actually 'rule otherwise.'

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 12:43 AM

Mar 2013

They essentially said "we have no idea why the first two clauses are there, but the third one is true." They left the purpose of the first two clauses unresolved, but upheld the third one "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" on grounds of 'tradition.' They then cited the ten lower court rulings which SUPPORTED their case, and contradicted the ten that didn't.

Like most people, I'm forced to accept the fact that the Scotus will occasionally make a ruling that's really just an OPINION based on tradition, in the absence of anything other than other opinions; and in the absence of any clear legal consensus. But let's call it what it was, an opinion, and not let anybody wrap themselves in the text of the Constitution, or the Founders' original intent over it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

217 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to THE SECURITY of a free state..." Some facts for you [View all] TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 OP

Yay! shenmue Mar 2013 #1

Better yet, truth with LINKS to the actual DOCUMENTS. TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #2

They have links to tbe tobacco industry. nt Cary Mar 2013 #112

The same Alexander Hamilton, who boasted of being in 10 duels, before being killed in the 11th one.. Ghost in the Machine Mar 2013 #205

Interesting... onpatrol98 Mar 2013 #3

Careful Crepuscular Mar 2013 #5

Backing slowly away from keyboard... onpatrol98 Mar 2013 #6

No, by all means... Crepuscular Mar 2013 #8

Yes, that comment was entirely too reasonable. TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #196

"Take the guns away" is an extreme characterization. I know lots of people interested in more patrice Mar 2013 #7

Seriously? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #9

Seriously? You believe everyone on the internet is honest? ... is what they portray themselves as? patrice Mar 2013 #10

I'm confused Crepuscular Mar 2013 #13

None of which justifies the dysfunctions that we are seeing. Some FEW idiots propose to take the gun patrice Mar 2013 #21

Um, my cohort? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #36

Acolytes of corporate gun-personhood patrice Mar 2013 #133

Yeah, Sure. Crepuscular Mar 2013 #136

ALL? You fail to notice that I asked you earlier WHAT PERCENTAGE. Why did you fail to notice that? patrice Mar 2013 #138

And, btw, you're saying NONE of them are, so you negate your own (mistaken) critique of my position. patrice Mar 2013 #139

Whatever Crepuscular Mar 2013 #140

So they say it but don't mean it? Melon_Lord Mar 2013 #28

What about the 100's of gun nuts who want more weapons Progressive dog Mar 2013 #15

read some gun threads Crepuscular Mar 2013 #20

And you think all of that stuff is authentic? If not, what percentage would you guess might not be patrice Mar 2013 #23

Authentic? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #27

That's either, intentionally or otherwise, naive, or dishonest. In either case, you just proved #21 patrice Mar 2013 #29

? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #42

Clearly there is some astroturfing ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #52

Astro-turfing from both directions. Corporate gun-persons are not sitting on the sidelines here. nt patrice Mar 2013 #132

Most of the pro gun organizations show a much wider contributor base than the anti gun ones ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #145

Thanks for that info. Just thinking gun manufacturers, such as those on the board of NRA, and patrice Mar 2013 #149

74% of the NRAs funding comes from the gun manufacturers TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #217

No Astroturfing, No false-equivalence: TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #214

Go look at the VPC ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #215

You mean the Violence Policy Center? TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #216

You have not been around long enough to give your statement much weight ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #24

What a silly elitist thing to say Progressive dog Mar 2013 #76

A suitable retort to someone making such broad statements as you did ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #143

Well then show me Progressive dog Mar 2013 #175

Here is a very blatant one who has been PPR'd (again) ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #179

Since this is "again" who was he before? Progressive dog Mar 2013 #181

Zombies usually betray themselves over time. Some even own up to it ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #182

Just skimmed the TOS and can't find where answering the question is a violation Progressive dog Mar 2013 #184

You did see the poster in the thread who said they support total confiscation? ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #185

No I missed that but not a big count yet, huh Progressive dog Mar 2013 #190

Here's one Brainstormy Mar 2013 #128

Would you leave the police armed? premium Mar 2013 #129

Anyone that would use a firearm against an LEO for *any* reason , even a legitimate one, will Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #163

I agree that if you point a gun or shoot a cop, premium Mar 2013 #165

and survival against a government not necessarily trusted at that time. AlbertCat Mar 2013 #40

Thank you for this. So sad isn't it, even when one may in fact be VERY right, violence makes you patrice Mar 2013 #4

As long as you are bringing "facts" to the discussion ... former9thward Mar 2013 #11

The theme of Federalist Paper 46 is no different from Federalist Paper 49 TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #44

Don't know what anarchism has to do with this. former9thward Mar 2013 #49

I was standing Madison's argument on its head by QUOTING him? TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #53

"And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes." ieoeja Mar 2013 #123

I highlighted the "wrong portion" because you don't like it. former9thward Mar 2013 #130

I "re-write history" by QUOTING ... you? ieoeja Mar 2013 #134

But Madison also couldn't conceive that the people and states would need/want to endlessly jmg257 Mar 2013 #135

VERY good point TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #193

Yawn. beevul Mar 2013 #12

I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Can you elaborate? TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #47

He's claiming here that *facts* bore him, as they almost uniformly do our "pro gun progressives"* apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #80

facts bore gun lovers but they spout samsingh Mar 2013 #153

Yep. Nails it. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #158

Guns impossible to regulate going forward TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #14

So you joined DU just to say the lie that technology has advanced too much to enforce laws? SunSeeker Mar 2013 #16

So your solution is making 3d printers illegal? TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #19

My solution would be making 3D patterns or blueprints or whatever illegal wyldwolf Mar 2013 #25

And that would work on exactly the people you dont need to worry about... TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #33

the people I don't need to worry about wouldn't be printing guns wyldwolf Mar 2013 #35

Right now. My point was in 5 years, they will be on practically every desktop around. TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #41

Says who? wyldwolf Mar 2013 #43

Says industry experts - which apparently you know more then. TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #65

Industry "experts" say 3D printers would make gun control pointless? wyldwolf Mar 2013 #79

You really dont expect such a transparent attempt at dodging to work do you? TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #115

What's the problem? Why not start with existing problems that we know about NOW...i.e. jmg257 Mar 2013 #116

I disagree. There are no laws that will ever solve this, even remotely. TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #120

As mentioned in another post...may be appropriate cause for regulating ammo and reloading jmg257 Mar 2013 #122

It's no dodge. Once your point was debunked, you altered it. wyldwolf Mar 2013 #137

Ah, I see. Claiming victory in defeat... TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #141

LOL. ok, good luck with your 3D printer and home made toy guns. wyldwolf Mar 2013 #144

Why do I get the feeling they've been re-running WEIRD SCIENCE on late night TV? TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #194

Not quite that easy.... but - TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #201

Would regulating the parts of regulated weapons help stem this new technology? jmg257 Mar 2013 #202

That is a fairly Luddite approach and will be no better than its namesake ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #38

it's a very effective approach, actually wyldwolf Mar 2013 #39

Actually you can do both, but I understand where you are coming from ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #45

It's not terribly difficult.... paleotn Mar 2013 #31

The problem is that sucidal maniacs dont care about jail... TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #117

This is actually an insightful argument as to why ammunition will have to be regulated. jmg257 Mar 2013 #118

If you think regulating assult weapons is a difficult proposition... TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #124

Nope, no more than I'd make Sudafed illegal. It's what you DO with it. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #60

LOL. yeah, that's BS. wyldwolf Mar 2013 #17

True RobertEarl Mar 2013 #18

Again, it has nothing to do with rights anymore. TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #26

So what is your solution to the problem? Or are you saying there should be no regs at all uppityperson Mar 2013 #32

Maybe we could actually address societies problems/inequalities and mental health issues pediatricmedic Mar 2013 #54

Anyone can keep a gun in the house, but not a bullet in the street graham4anything Mar 2013 #34

That cat's been out of the bag RobertEarl Mar 2013 #37

If your argument is that it's pointless to ban arms manufacturers from selling certain types of TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #51

No, my argument contains essentially 4 points... TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #142

How long do you think it will take for the field of files to remain irreparably polluted by fakes? Occulus Mar 2013 #180

Your not very savy about reputation and community feedback systems are you? TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #186

Counterfeiting is legal now? jberryhill Mar 2013 #77

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA DainBramaged Mar 2013 #126

I'm not too worried about plastic guns with plastic bullets and home-made gunpowder. arcane1 Mar 2013 #127

"Go to sleep," whisper the corporate lackeys. Orsino Mar 2013 #169

What are you talking about? The gun industry itself will be obsolete when this technology takes off. TampaAnimusVortex Mar 2013 #187

I'm talking about firearms. Orsino Mar 2013 #200

“I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms" - Barack Obama hack89 Mar 2013 #22

You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #84

You going to deny that president actually said that? hack89 Mar 2013 #89

You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #92

So do you agree with the President? nt hack89 Mar 2013 #100

You're not really fooling anyone, hack. I know you think you are, and it's a nice try. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #101

He relies on us to give bim authority. Cary Mar 2013 #113

Heh, I don't deny that A) people have a (natural) right to defend themselves and their property, and TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #195

They were simply restoring and protecting the traditional right to bear arms hack89 Mar 2013 #198

Or confirming it, rather than restoring it. For anyone to claim (as Madison inferred) that the TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #208

Militia's were organized well below state/colony level One_Life_To_Give Mar 2013 #206

And, of course, "well regulated" actually means regulations are acceptable. Curmudgeoness Mar 2013 #30

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to put restrictions on the government....not the people. davidn3600 Mar 2013 #46

Here's why you're wrong about the Second Amendment. Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #86

K & R good article Thinkingabout Mar 2013 #48

Hmm, who to believe. The Supreme Court or some anonymous user of a political chatboard? MadHound Mar 2013 #50

And dont forget the state Niceguy1 Mar 2013 #55

I'm not sure what the contradiction is? TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #56

This is not the only odd--and wrong--Scalia decision. nt SunSeeker Mar 2013 #58

This is what you stated, MadHound Mar 2013 #59

The Supreme Court didn''t actually 'rule otherwise.' TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #78

Again, who to believe, an anonymous internet poster, MadHound Mar 2013 #94

*Facepalm* TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #197

I believe Stevens and 200 years of precedent, not the ridiculous Scalia decision you cite. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #57

Except, as I stated, it just isn't the Heller ruling, MadHound Mar 2013 #61

The Florida Constitution states that madville Mar 2013 #63

So? SunSeeker Mar 2013 #68

Right, who cares about state rights madville Mar 2013 #71

I didn't say they couldn't govern themselves, just that they aren't always right. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #75

As Stevens' dissent pointed out, the Heller ruling contradicted SUPREME COURT precedent. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #64

Umm, I don't know what Stevens was talking about, MadHound Mar 2013 #67

Try reading the Stevens and Breyer dissents. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #69

I have, MadHound Mar 2013 #70

It is the only Supreme Court case to have interpreted it that way. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #73

You obviously don't have a legal background, MadHound Mar 2013 #90

LOL. Way to mansplain it! SunSeeker Mar 2013 #121

Yep - the Heller ruling was the "Dred Scott" and "Plessey v. Ferugson" of our generation: apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #99

The President thinks the 2A protects an individual right. Is he wrong? nt hack89 Mar 2013 #62

No. Unfortunately, that is the law now thanks to the ridiculous 2008 Heller decision. nt SunSeeker Mar 2013 #66

President Obama disagrees with you and says the 2nd amendment is an individual right davidn3600 Mar 2013 #72

I'm not running for President. I'm not trying to pander to gun nuts. nt SunSeeker Mar 2013 #74

Hmmm..."MadHound" praising a 5-4 Rightwing court with Scalia in the lead...who to believe? apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #83

So, I suppose that you also disagree with President Obama MadHound Mar 2013 #93

So, I suppose you completely and totally support President Obama's recent gun control proposals? apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #96

Actually I do, MadHound Mar 2013 #103

Actually, you don't - as shown over and over and over again, particularly with your opposition to apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #105

Got links? MadHound Mar 2013 #109

"Care to continue calling me a liar" - Why should I get in your way? You're doing a bang-up (no pun apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #147

"though I think that it will be fairly toothless, since the definition of "assault weapon" is so.." apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #107

The fact of the matter is the definition of assault weapon is pretty amorphous, MadHound Mar 2013 #110

Thanks for the laughs. You are good at this. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #125

There's another one up there saying everyone on the internet is authentic, so every time we see patrice Mar 2013 #131

The funny thing is, posters like that who have spent YEARS peddling the pro-NRA line are suddenly apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #148

Yes, it is quite a spectacle. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #167

You sure are anxious to get on the side of that right-wing Scalia court when it comes to their apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #98

Hmmm...where did the Scalia supporter get off to? One wonders... apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #102

Impatient one, aren't you. MadHound Mar 2013 #104

Scalia supporters don't really impress me all that much - nor does his legal career impress the apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #106

Yep, just ignore all the previous precedents set in lower courts, MadHound Mar 2013 #111

You go right on supporting a right-wing supreme court justice's (Ronnie Raygun appointment) premier apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #150

Spot-on OP, with irrefutable facts. Kick, Rec. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #81

Thank you! TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #211

There's also the actual powers granted to Congress in the text of the Constitution. Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #82

You didn't make it a sentence without insulting the people you are trying to reach Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #85

Baloney. You just don't like the *FACTS* presented, to wit: the founding fathers did not care apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #87

I hate to burst your.. sendero Mar 2013 #88

Ahhhh, yet *another* "pro gun progressive"* who couldn't be bothered to read the content apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #91

You are.. sendero Mar 2013 #95

You are...another "pro gun progressive"* apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #97

"Enjoy your, ummm, stay... " sylvi Mar 2013 #146

Do you now? I guess we'll see, won't we? Enjoy your, ummm, stay, too. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #156

Yes. We will see. sylvi Mar 2013 #160

Indeed. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #161

It is rather ridiculous pintobean Mar 2013 #168

Ahhhh...someone's been missing their Meta fix. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #170

Ironic. nt pintobean Mar 2013 #173

Tell me about it. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #174

Yes. We shouldn't believe that thigns are possible just because they happened before. n/t Orsino Mar 2013 #172

Kinda rolls off the tongue though... Turbineguy Mar 2013 #108

Now THAT's funny! The 'minute men' TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #192

Good summary...a couple points to remember.. jmg257 Mar 2013 #114

Of course the militia refers to "ordinary" citizens. That has always been the case, and it's... slackmaster Mar 2013 #119

Somebody always posts this ThoughtCriminal Mar 2013 #183

Congress has been silent on the issue for more than 100 years now. slackmaster Mar 2013 #188

100 years - Really? ThoughtCriminal Mar 2013 #189

Gotta love the impotent appeals to "should" that aren't supported by any kind of reasoning slackmaster Mar 2013 #199

That is not a rebuttle ThoughtCriminal Mar 2013 #207

And your brand of originalism, in turn, offers a dubious interpretation of the 2nd. dairydog91 Mar 2013 #151

well researched and well argued. this is the truth and all those opposed samsingh Mar 2013 #152

this should be recommended a thousand times samsingh Mar 2013 #154

NRA has gunorrhea of the brain. RedCloud Mar 2013 #155

Leave ME out of that Militia HockeyMom Mar 2013 #157

From Natural Law One_Life_To_Give Mar 2013 #159

Message auto-removed snurpsfnurbs Mar 2013 #162

Jesus Christ - can't you even come up with something original? cyberswede Mar 2013 #164

That would require having, you know, one's own ideas arcane1 Mar 2013 #166

That gun troll actually linked to something called "whiteswillwinparty." apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #171

To be fair... cyberswede Mar 2013 #176

I just thought if you clicked it might take you to the Republican National Committee's home page. apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #178

Hahah! That's what happens when you google for pro-gun quotations TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #191

Which makes total sense. DCBob Mar 2013 #177

That horse is dead. You can quit beating it. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #203

'Collectivist?' Seriously? TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #209

Yes. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #212

I never claimed it wasn't an individual right. I claimed (and provided proof) that the Founders TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #213

It's ironic. RedSpartan Mar 2013 #204

Yep, that was exactly my point. And while I'm not denying anybody's right to bear arms, my argument TrollBuster9090 Mar 2013 #210