U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed
Source:
LF
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 9, 2015
Author: tpaine
Post Date: 2015-07-09 10:39:45 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 79231
Comments: 255
The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment
AMENDMENT 28.
Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only.
Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment.
Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Poster Comment:
During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-168) not displayed.
.
.
.
#169. To: Gatlin (#152)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Yea he's as unmistakeable as a dose of the screaming schitts. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I think the correct analogy would be "amuses the hell out of them".
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
You forgot the one where he named himself after a rodent, be he only lasted a few days that time. Kinda reminds you of Gatlin's other pal Mojave/Palmdale, naming himself after things in S. Calif. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Some people do have a morbid sense of humor to feed their abnormally that is susceptible to being characterized by gloomy or unwholesome feelings….they are often referred to as “Sickos.” We seen to have a goodly number of those around here.
And then there is Jim Rob's summation of tpaine as "inflicting pain is your game." Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson Your game has not changed in over 10 years. You spout utter nonsense and attempt to frustrate others until a flame war erupts. Then you try to report someone and have them banned. You are one sick puppy. I am unable to help it if you have an overabundance of the stupid gene and your inferior intellect is unable to comprehend my posts. You do make kind of a nice pet to keep around though, just to have some fun. 100 posted on 9/24/2003, 2:05:17 AM by nolu chan - - - To: tpaine 42 101 posted on 9/24/2003, 2:07:08 AM by nolu chan
My #142 documented that the Articles of Confederation not only suggested permanancy but explicitly stated it was permanent. All member states agreed to observes the articles. Article 13 expressly stated that no alteration could be made without the consent of every state legislature. And yet, the Framers had a meeting, proposed an entirely new form of government, stated that it would be effective unpon ratification of 9 of the 13 states, and a new government was formed, and Washington was inaugurated upon an election with 10 states participating, and with 2 states having not ratified and, therefore, not being part of the new union when the new government took effect. I asked, How could any alteration lawfully be done when the Articles provide that they will be inviolably observed by every state, and no alteration could be made unless confirmed by the legislature of every state? How was the Bill of Rights passed through Congress with only ELEVEN states in the union? Is the Constitution unlawful, null and void? If not, why not? C-R-I-C-K-E-T-S The Constitution binds the Federal government and the State governments. It does not bind the sovereign power that made it. One generation cannot bind another, for all time. When acting as the sovereign (as opposed to citizens), the people are always free to change their form of government to one more of their liking. It is what explains the power to change the Articles of Confederation, dissolve that perpetual union, and not only alter but abolish it, without having the approval of every state. Otherwise, the adoption of the Constitution itself was an unlawful act.
Suggested principles in a political declaration are not law and govern no one.
Thanks for the link (at #147) to that old thread, as it proves my point completely.. You gave up the discussion shortly after the excerpts you just posted because you couldn't refute my answers. --- I urge anyone here to read the complete thread to verify. You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. -- It's usually the other way around. --- As you well know.
I have not revised my answer. You asked if the 2nd Amendment could be repealed. My answer has consistently been that it could be repealed by another amendment, in the same manner that the 18th was repealed by the 21st. You did not here ask if I favored or opposed such repeal. I have not changed my mind on that either. I just not comport with the fantasy argument you have been cut and pasting for a decade. The RKBA is protected by the 2nd Amendment and the right is an individual right. The 2nd Amendment did not grant a right to anyone, but recognized a pre-existing right, inhering to the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights Right to keep and bear arms This right has been fully incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts,See McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as a "central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra. As the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated against the states, it applies equally to the states due to the 14th Amendment. If it were not (or before it was) incorporated, that would not confer a delegation of sovereign power to state to mess with the RKBA. The right was individual and I do not see when the people have ever chosen to delegate away their RBKA power in any state. It is not delegated away by silence in the organic law. As Jim Rob summed you up, inflicting pain is your game. You strive to be a pain in the ass and see if you can get a reaction. Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. -- It's usually the other way around. --- As you well know. Whatever. -- You're repeating yourself again. --- Get some new lines...
It is amazing how your cited documentation in support of your bullshit looks so different when it is removed from your bullshit mischaracterization, and actually quoted. This, no doubt, is why you don't quote it when it directly contradicts you. At nolu chan #69 The BOR does not apply only to citizens. It applies to non-citizens as well. For example, the search and seizure clause applies equally to citizens and non-citizens. I did not choose and they already have. Whoever opines, I want them to continue to find an individual right to keep and bear arms, unless another amendment changes that. As misterwhite observed at #67, "Don't beat up the retard. That can't be any fun." I brushed you side like the insignificant pest that you are. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=66#C66 Your unsupported opinion does not overturn two centuries of jurisprudence. The Court says what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 177 (1803) provides, - - - - - Not true.. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 180 (1803) Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Your claim, taken to its logical conclusion, indicates mass confusion. The Supreme Court issues opinions just to pass the time of day and to amuse itself. The other branches of government are free to ignore such opinions. The failure of Congress to legislate abortion away since Roe v. Wade is merely a legislative failure. And now there will be no more complaints about Obama's open borders as he has no need to pay attention to court opinions. Indeed, should the Court find that subsidies on federal exchanges are not authorized, we should recognize that the Executive is free to ignore that opinion and keep paying subsidies. Only the President interprets the laws as they apply to the President. It's good to be King. Indeed, as the President can interpret the law, and ignore the courts, Obama should be able to interpret the Constitution to permit him a third term and run for reelection. He need not heed anyone else's opinion. Don't beat up the retard. That can't be any fun. I believe he's referring to court dicta, not court opinion. The quote was from an 1829 letter to Joseph Cabell. Miller said the second amendment does not protect those weapons not typically associated with the preservation of a militia. AND they said they didn't know if a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun qualified. Miller had no holding on the issue. The case had not been heard in the District Court. Nothing had been decided following any argument. An indictment was issued, the indictment was challenged for insufficiency, and the indictment was quashed by the District judge. That was appealed to SCOTUS. The National Firearms Act of 1934 came under 26 U.S.C., the Internal Revenue Code. The District Court upheld the demurrer based on its finding that Section 11 of the Act violated the Constitution. Section 11 reads, "It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register as provided in section 5 hereof and who shall not have so registered, or any other person who has not in his possession a stamp-affixed order as provided in section 4 hereof, to ship, carry, or deliver any firearm in interstate commerce." SCOTUS held the Act (1) not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States, and (2) not violative of the Second amendment of the Constitution. As the case had not been heard below in the District Court, it was remanded in order for it to be heard for the first time. SCOTUS was only acting on the contested demurrer and quashing of the indictment. SCOTUS reinstated the indictment. Of course it was not based on Miller's meandering dicta. Dicta is not precedent. Heller's holding is precedent. BULLSHIT! You are entitled to your opinion and SCOTUS is entitled to theirs. Theirs carries more weight. SCOTUS gets to decide what the law is. The BOR does not apply only to citizens. It applies to non-citizens as well. For example, the search and seizure clause applies equally to citizens and non-citizens. I did not choose and they already have. Whoever opines, I want them to continue to find an individual right to keep and bear arms, unless another amendment changes that. They were required to be possessed by all able-bodied white males eligible for the militia. Federal law specified all between 18 and 45. State laws varied to a wider age range. Gun ownership was not restricted as you assume. Their were no police forces in the 1700's. Elliott's Debates contain some interesting quotes from the State debates on the Constitution. Elliott's Debates, Vol 1, 2nd Ed., p. 328, New York Convention, July 26, 1788, emphasis as in original: Elliott's Debates, Vol 1, 2nd Ed., p. 335, Rhode Island Convention, May 29, 1790: Elliott's Debates, Vol 3, 2nd Ed., p. 385-86, Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry. Elliott's Debates, Vol 3, 2nd Ed., p. 659, Virginia Convention, And, of course, there is the following, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939) You are entitled to your opinion. SCOTUS is entitled to theirs. They did not conclude that handguns were not protected by the second amendment. They found and individual right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS stated what the law is. It applies nationwide.
Jim Rob on FR is not the only example, Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson but it is a good one because he absolutely nailed your bullshit act. Your posting history provides a lifetime of material. I will never run out of examples of you squatting and depositing some turd of thought. Let's see how you were tossed off of LP. Title: ‘Uncivil obedience’ ‘Uncivil obedience’ [Article redacted to due to copyright violation] [Thread Locked] Other drivers have been cussing at me for 46 years because I'm one of the few people who always stay within the speed limit.... Well almost always... sometimes it's prudent and safer to just go with the flow when traffic is extra heavy... I don't like it, but it's much safer that way. But from Wikipedia: which unfortunately resuscitates long dormant memories of L.A. Times v. Free Republic So I don't know how you guys want to handle copyright infringement issues, but from my perspective, I'd only post excerpts from what's freely available on the web & totally avoid posting anything that's behind a paywall. One of the reasons LP is dark. In January 2014 The Volokh Conspiracy migrated to the Washington Post and was moved behind a paywall in June 2014. which unfortunately resuscitates long dormant memories of L.A. Times v. Free Republic So I don't know how you guys want to handle copyright infringement issues, but from my perspective, I'd only post excerpts from what's freely available on the web & totally avoid posting anything that's behind a paywall. Thanks for raising the subject, Willy. I'd say we should wait and see if the washpost sends us another infringement notice. -- I'd bet that since we no longer have an 'owner' (subject to finding Goldies will), that they simply won't bother, and so will no one else. It's futile to sue close to 100 individuals for posting freely available articles. From the article posted:--- Our copywrite infringement laws are now being challenged by literally millions of US Citizens who are posting freely available articles, videos, music, etc., all over the web. -- IMO, -- If you are serious about defending a copyright, you had best not publish your material on an easily copied format. Opinions? Anyone caught deliberately posting material from a source that has prohibited its distribution will be banned. There are not too many things that I'd consider taking that kind of action for, but illegal activity fits the bill. If anyone wants to challenge copyright laws feel free to do so on your own server. L.A. Times v. Free Republic Source: The Washington Post. I can see it now: The Washington Post v. Liberty Post courtesy of tpaine. How much did the lawsuit cost Free Republic? Sys Admin - I suggest you remove the article and include tpaine in your ping since he posted it. Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine KNOWS this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/05/uncivil- obedience/ FYI www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts Not good. Not good. Not good at all!!! Are you guys saying that tpaine deliberately posted copyrighted material and attempted to hide that it was coming from such a source? That is a serious charge. Tpaine, I'm giving you the opportunity to explain whether or not this is the case. In the meantime I am going to redact the original article until the truth of this can be determined. I'd say we should wait and see if the washpost sends us another infringement notice. -- I'd bet that since we no longer have an 'owner' (subject to finding Goldies will), that they simply won't bother, and so will no one else. It's futile to sue close to 100 individuals for posting freely available articles. I'll consider myself warned. But pray tell, where did you get the authority to arbitrarily ban anyone for this arguable infraction? (I won't dignify the concept that this is an 'illegal activity', as millions of citizens are doing this, and absolutely NO specific individual is being prosecuted). Do you own the server? And did the washpost threaten to sue both Goldie and the server owner? Yes, I now "own" the virtual server LP is running on as I am the one one paying the bill. Very soon LP will be running on my own server. I am the one who will be held responsible for any violations. I'm very sorry, but I will not tolerate illegal actions of any kind here. NO WARNINGS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. You're gone. Since the offending material has been removed I will leave this thread here as a warning. I'll leave it open for now but may lock it after hearing what the community has to say.
Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
Wow, did you just learn that? There are mountains, a large lake, lodges, businesses and an electoral district with the name Kluane also.
Why are you repeatedly reposting that tired old post from JR? Feel free, but dream on if you really imagine it proves anything...
Feel free, but dream on if you really imagine it proves anything... I guess you should keep reading it until it becomes clearer. Perhaps if I emphasize the obvious a bit more. Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson You poor thing. Jim Rob would not take your abuse report seriously.
Some people do have a morbid sense of humor to feed their abnormally that is susceptible to being characterized by gloomy or unwholesome feelings….they are often referred to as “Sickos.” We seen to have a goodly number of those around here. I find him amusing cause he just never learns and you find him amusing because you think he pisses people off, you think he takes after you and that's why you support him. So doesn't that mean that you're also describing yourself?? “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
You poor thing, trying to imply that filing 'abuse reports' at that time on FR meant attempting to get someone banned. --- Hell, for a while there, it was the sites sport, as everyone competed to see who could get the mods to 'delete' your opponents personally offensive remarks. To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=29#29 I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse?
To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred. And for proof, read the thread below, cited by Chan. www.freerepublic.com/focu...t/650379/posts?page=29#29 To: Eagle Eye I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine If you really read the thread you would know, --- not many.. ---- At this point in my FR 'career', JR was really on my case, and working himself up to permanently banning a number of us 'disruptors'. Which he eventually did... I urge anyone to read the whole thread for context. It was a very fun time for most of us at FR ---- Except for JR and his band of sick sycophants.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts tpaine vanity whine vanity ^ | 3/20/02 | tpaine Posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine On the afternnoon of 3/18 Texaggie79 and I got into a type of discussion that is becoming all too common at FR. In an effort to defend his position as a drug warrior, tex decided to attack the motives of his percieved enemies, 'the libertarians'. --- Here is that thread: Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law Changes Posts #205/206 are one of our more typical exchanges. -- Shortly after our disagreement ended, -- on that thread. Later that same evening, I had just responded to a concealed carry question at #15, - on this thread: Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth ---- When my correspondent asked if I was still 'harrassing' texaggie. --- I denied any such intent, -- and Tex immediately posted the URL of the cannibus tread as his 'proof' of being harrassed. Thus, Tex set off another 'flame war' between us on the same subject as the previous post. Eventually, others on the thread protested his hijack of the thread. -- In response, I tried to show that texaggies constitutional position was not only against drugs, but could also be applied against guns. -- Just as this point was about to be established, -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' . No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation. I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange. And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods. I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer. TOPICS: Cheese, Moose, Sister; Free Republic Policy/Q&A; Humor KEYWORDS: Navigation: use the links below to view more comments. first 1-50, 51-100, 101-125 next last 1 posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=17#17 You should be flamed just for starting a whole bleeping thread for your edification. What was wrong with leaving your WOD battle where it was? Gotta have a thread with your name on the top or something? I don't care that you posted this turkey in cheese-ville. 17 posted on 3/20/2002, 5:55:00 PM by Cyber Liberty http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=24#24 And you with there wondering why "discussions" with you always turn to flame-fests. You are either stupid or just self-absorbed to the point that you have no idea how ridiculous you look. Buh bye. I have some hot dogs to go steam. 24 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:08:38 PM by Cyber Liberty http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=29#29' I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? = = = = = = = = = = A tpaine victory http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=36#36 You and Tex completely ruined that thread. You dragged in an unrelated ongoing argument and ended up taking the thread completely off topic. What was particularly galling was that you continued your flame war even after Mr. March, the subject of the article, made an appearance on the thread and even went as far as asking you to stop. You pissed him off so bad that now he is banned for using vulgar language. 36 posted on 3/20/2002, 7:35:31 PM by Sandy http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=37#37 I was about to respond [belatedly, I admit] to him, and offer encouragement, etc, when he blew up. I am sorry that you think, -- that I was at fault beyond that. -- I don't see it that way at all. I'm responsible for what I actually do or say. - Not for anyones perceived opinions about my actions. 37 posted on 3/20/2002, 8:03:49 PM by tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=40#40">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=40#40 I'll ask John to start a new topic called "Whine and Cheese" just for you. Thanks, Jim 40 posted on 3/20/2002, 9:33:42 PM by Jim Robinson And the unanswered question remains, How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? And you were obviously referring to your antics on yet some previous thread.
13/14 years ago, I posted: --- -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' . 'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid- discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control. No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation. I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange. And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods. I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer. -- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions. 1 posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine Shortly after, I received this post from JR.. And, if memory serves, JR suspended me for another short period, right after that.. I answered, just above, that I have no idea 'how many times'. -- Look it up if it's important to you. -- That seems to be your major obsession the last few days, trying to convict be of some 'crime' over at FR, 13 years ago. Get a life. Find a new hobby. -- Or rave on, and continue your obsessive- compulsive behaviour. It's becoming funny/weird.
http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=10#C10 There was an article TPR recently posted purely to instigate a flame war. I pinged you with a request to move it to the Biker Bar. --- Gatlin I saw that and fixed the title accordingly. TPR has been warned that one more incident and he's busted down to a lower posting level. --- sysadmin Gatlin keeps posting barely disguised remarks referring to me as a "stalker" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. tpaine posted on 2015-01-06 18:47:32 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=16#C16 Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. tpaine posted on 2015-01-06 19:09:14 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=17#C17 If I were to start issuing formal warnings to every person here who uses "silly words" in their comments I'd have time for nothing else. People make fun of each other and call each other names here at least a dozen times before breakfast and it continues throughout the day. It is part and parcel of political debate even face-to-face in many instances, and it is very easy to fall into that habit when dealing with anonymous, faceless opponents online. (Frankly I believe in most cases the people doing the name calling are saying more about themselves than the persons being targeted.) However, I will keep an eye out for reports of anything that rises to the level of being truly objectionable. As always, if you guys (or anyone else) really want to get into it with each other that's no skin off my nose but please take it to the Biker Bar where it belongs. sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:39:31 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=18#C18 Sorry about the silly words. I'll try to be less of a tpettifogger starting at some unspecified date in the near future. Palmdale posted on 2015-01-06 20:48:34 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=19#C19 OK, thanks -- just don't graduate to silly walks or we'll be in real trouble! sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:57:28 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=20#C20 Pthe tpoor ptattle ptale... ---- Palmdale You are just insufferable. Stop whining. SOD posted on 2015-01-06 21:21:18 ET Everybody else tries to instigate flame wars with you, but you remain resolute in keeping the peace. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it.
Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud.
Makes me proud. Yes, everybody else is unstable. You poor baby. You accuse everyone of trying to start a flame war with you. On this thread you started your modus operandi at your #39 to TooConservative. You continued your modus operandi at your #79 to myself, nolu chan. I have been documenting your pulling this same stunt at this site and other sites. By doing it with me (again), you invited the rebuttal. Sometimes the truth hurts. I am not flaming you, I am coldly, almost robotically, destroying your whines. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=39#C39 During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional, and that officials of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our various levels of gov'ts could give their opinions to that effect, and refuse to implement such and act, as per their oaths of office Do you contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war? What a silly clickbait vanity thread. What a silly, click-baiting reply. -- Take your attempts to start a flame war elsewhere. tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 15:33:25 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=79#C79 We agree... We disagree. -- There is nothing in our constitution itself that supports your opinion. -- Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case. Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks... tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 21:45:58 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=82#C82 A flame war does not consist of mildly perjorative comments. I am expressing my disdain for your blather. nolu chan posted on 2015-07-09 21:55:09 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=89#C89 [...] As I've noted before, you seem to want to end this discussion (because you realise you can't what - 'win'?) with a flame war. --- No sale.. tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 22:05:19 ET This is the #75 that you respond to by saying I want to end this discussion with a flame war. What you characterize as an entry in a flame war bears repeating to show your desperation. This claim is false, as previously explained thoroughly on the other thread. The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Counsel did not argue the the amendment was unconstitutional, he argued that, due to its content, it was ordinary legislation and not an amendment at all. And, as ordinary legislation, the court had the authority to strike it down, according to this creative argument. Trust tpaine to bloviate endlessly about crap he has not seen or read. On brief: The briefs were ridiculed in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. This is the Yale Law Journal, not tpaine's court of the imagination. The argument was characterized in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 333. [...] Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.” The 18th Amendment was an amendment, not common legislation. In 264 Federal Reporter 186, on the Feigenspan case, the headnotes read, 2. Every grant of power to the federal government, whether by the Constitution as orlglnally framed or by subsequent amendment, necessariy diminished powers of the several st.ates, and that an amendment takes away a pollce power previously In the state dpes not render It invalid. 3. That a constitutional amendment is in effect legislation controlling the conduct of private individuals, in that it ordains a final permanent law prohibiting certain acts, not alterable at the will of a majority, does not render it invalid. 4. The provision of Const. art. 5, authorizing Congress to propose amendments "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary," does not require that a joint resolution proposing an amendment shall expressly declare that it is deemed necessary. 5. Congress alone, of all departments of the federal government, is intrusted with the power of proposing amendments to the Constitution, and the form of resolutions by which it proposes an amendment is not subject to judicial investigation. 6. In Const. art. 5, providing that a proposed amendment shall be valid "when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states," when that mode shall be proposed by Congress, the word "Legislature" means the then recognized representative law-making bodies of the states, and the validity of an amendment ratified by the requisite number of such Legislatures cannot be affected by state laws providing for, or permitting, a referendum vote on legislative acts. 7. Eighteenth Amendment, § 2, providing that "the Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislatlon," must be construed, in harmony with its purpose, to expressly authorize effective legislation for enforcement of section 1, which excludes a construction making concurrence of the states necessary to tbe effectiveness of congressional legislation, and such legislation, if enacted, is parramount, and, while it may be supplemented by state legislation, it cannot be defeated by any action or nonaction of the states. In the absence of action by Congress, any state may enact enforcement legislation effective within its borders. 8. National Prohibition Act Oct. 28, 1919, § 1, in providing that "intoxicating liquor" as used in the act, shall be construed to include all liquors, liquids, or compounds containing one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol by volume, does not make a definition which may be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional by the courts, but one which it was within the reasonable discretion of Congress to make for the purposes of the act. 9. National Prohibition Act Oct 28, 1919, held not invalid, as taking private property for public use without just compensution, in violation of Fifth Amendment, because, as incidental to the exercise of a lawful power, loss may result to certain species of property. 10. "Amendment" includes additions to, as well as corrections of, matters already treated, and there is nothing in the context of Const. art. 5, providing that Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments, which suggests that it was used in a restricted sense. The Decree in Feigenspan was affirmed by SCOTUS. 253 US 350, 40 Sup Ct 486.
Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud. What can I say? -- You're certainly overwrought, as evidenced by your last reply.. Who's acting like a poor baby? You are kiddo. Whatever.... But do tell us more about your robotic fantasies....
But do tell us more about your robotic fantasies.... If you insist on more stories about your legal acumen and the pride you take in your posting history, I am compelled to comply. When Legal Giants Collide http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=133#133 This is absolute lunacy. In order for there to be a crime, someone must be injured by either force or fraud. Period. Otherwise no crime has been committed. 133 posted on 12/6/2002, 10:25:27 PM by Jonathon Spectre http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=211#211 Jonathon Spectre said: "In order for there to be a crime, someone must be injured by either force or fraud. Period." False. Period. Give JS & I an example of a 'criminal' act we could commit upon *you*, roscoe, -- that would injure you without using force or fraud. Sure. You could open a crack house in my neighborhood. Hmmm, - I open a 'bootleg' party house in your neighborhood. Unless we create a disturbance/cause harm, there is no criminal action committed to affect *you*, billy. -- But if the peace of the neighborhood is being disturbed, you are being *forced* to contend with an undesireable situation, and if it continued your property could also lose value, -a type of *fraud*. - You would have lawful recourse for your injuries. 211 posted on Saturday, December 07, 2002 17:33:37 by tpaine Let's see, disturbing the peace is a form of fraud. Only in tpaineworld. I prefer to give examples of what could be done to In tpaineworld, how does one commit a crime against another person, with or without violence? You could always violate the laws of nature.
You reAlly are going off the deep end with your last post, my boy. I'd recommend a mental health counselor, but I don't know any. Please, get help. I'm sorry that you feel I've driven you to this compulsion...
That one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent.
Your mistaken opinions about my character have been noted and you are entitled to them, but you really should lighten up, for your own mental health.. I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. But in any case, it is not the end of the world when someone disputes what you INSIST are the way things MUST be. And believe me, I really am concerned about your compulsive and repetitive posts. Please, get help...
That's one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=224#224 bvw: No, he can't. My comments at #211 stand unrefuted by you three clowns, -- and now, to divert attention away from that fact, you claim that victimless 'crime' law is historically justified. -- This nations constitution was written in an attempt to correct such historical injustice. You boys, and your weird opinions on constitutional law are testimony that much work remains to educate americans on their own liberty. 224 posted on 12/8/2002, 1:59:56 PM by tpaine Unrefuted, indeed! Observing the Dean of the tpaine School of Law flail about in the dark is more fun than the typical TV sitcom. Nobody could possibly refute your scholarship at criminal law. Americans need to be educated oni the law and you, as leader of the Black Widows, are the one for the job.
How weird that you pick 'Roscoe' for your hero. --- But that's fine. --- Just another example of how overwrought and unstable you've become. I still don't understand just what disturbs you so.. The mere fact that we disagree about the constitutionality of amending away our basic human rights, -- shouldn't have set you off to this extent. Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can..
Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness. You can only try to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to understand why your comments on criminal law are so absurd. Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1907774/posts?page=177#177 Do not take up law as a profession. Your lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law. Before I call this issue dead, I feel I must address this though... You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser. If I invite you on my property with the stipulation that you must not be armed and you are indeed armed without my consent, then you have entered my property without my consent (my consent was conditional on you not being armed) and you would be a trespasser. If I make no mention of such a condition you would not be trespassing until I tell you that you cannot be on my land with weapons and you refused to leave. That's the law (which does not contradict the US Constitution) 177 posted on 10/13/2007, 5:07:03 PM by dpa5923
I still don't understand just what disturbs you so.. The mere fact that we disagree about the constitutionality of amending away our basic human rights, -- shouldn't have set you off to this extent. Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Me? Helpless? Dream on boy. You keep repeating your mistaken opinions and attempt to prove them by digging up old threads from FR. --- Do you really imagine this silly tactic is working? www.freerepublic.com/focu...907774/posts?page=177#177 Thanks again for the link. I urge anyone to read the thread for context.
I see that you have entered your excuse making phase to explain why you are incapable of discerning what is so boneheaded about your discussion of criminal law quoted in my #197 and #201. Your abject lack of legal knowledge, i.e. not knowing what you were talking about, now leaves you helpless to to do anything but bluster and bloviate. It is fun to watch. While I have not claimed to be a lawyer, you allusion to my purported politically correct law school education is your way of explaining why your own knowledge of law is revealed to be so deficient. It is a crutch to explain the boneheaded nature of your discussion of criminal law. [tpaine #204] Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Asked and answered at my #203, "Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1907774/posts?page=177#177 Thanks again for the link. I urge anyone to read the thread for context. Oh, that's alright, I'll repeat the context. It was that "[y]our lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law." Do not take up law as a profession. Your lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law. Before I call this issue dead, I feel I must address this though... You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser. If I invite you on my property with the stipulation that you must not be armed and you are indeed armed without my consent, then you have entered my property without my consent (my consent was conditional on you not being armed) and you would be a trespasser. If I make no mention of such a condition you would not be trespassing until I tell you that you cannot be on my land with weapons and you refused to leave. That's the law (which does not contradict the US Constitution) 177 posted on 10/13/2007, 5:07:03 PM by dpa5923 As for your general legal acumen, the following is a fun example: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=30#C30 [...] It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it. It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds] tpaine posted on 2007-10-30 9:08:50 ET In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's inspired wisdom will rub off. Amendment V As per tpaine, "the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away," I suppose the capital crime cited in the Constitution must refer to a crime committed in Washington, D.C. As for the certified insane having a right to keep and bear arms, some people should not be allowed to keep and bear keyboards.
tpaine #200] I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions. I and many others, both here and on other forums, have rejected some of your opinions, as your links to FR and LP have proved. Thanks again do posting them.. libertypost.org/cgi- bin/r...ArtNum=204789&Disp=30#C30 #30. To: robertpaulsen, tolsti, yall (#28) [...] It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it. It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds] tpaine posted on 2007-10-30 9:08:50 ET Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at leastcthe last portions of the thread nolu posted. Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat.
It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence, Any claim to be a lawyer by an internet handle is meaningless. Citations to and quotes of competent legal authority are not. My quotes and citations outweigh your brain farts, such as your still hilarious about what acts do, or do not, constitute a crime of one person against another person. Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless...." It is correct to state that the DoI, a political statement, refers to inalienable rights, such as the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except for their slaves, and the inalienable right to life. It is correct to state that the DoI has never been adopted as the law of any jurisdiction. The paramount law of the United States explicitly provides for capital punishment. While you maintain that the right to life is an inalienable right that man can not take away, the law of the land provides for executions. The several states and the United States have executed man and woman, using such methods as firing squad, hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. The objects of the exercise found their supposed inalienable right was quite alienable. Of course, the person ineligible to possess a weapon, or if the weapon was unlawful to possess, would be guilty of illegal possession of a weapon. The right to self-defense does not authorize unlawful possession of a weapon. In the Bernhard Goetz case, he was found not guilty of four counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault in the first degree, but was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (N.Y.P.L. 265.02). Goetz served time as a result of the criminal conviction. People v Pons, Ct App NY, 68 NY2d 264, 266 (1986) Juries have consistently found the guilty party to be guilty, contrary to your baseless claim to the contrary. The right to self-defense does not infer a right to unlawful possession of a weapon.
Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the last thread nolu posted. Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. You imagine you're 'hitting' me? How idiotic, -- all you're doing is displaying your obsessive weirdness, by posting old threads on which you and I disagreed, most of which you left, unable to prove your points. You're acting like a real crazy guy on FR, 'Roscoe'.. Keep up the good work.
At #208 As for the inalienable right to life, You imagine you're 'hitting' me? How idiotic, Only tpaine responds to my #207 with the following quote, making believe it appears in my #207. I does not. This is the actual content of my #207 which so flattened his #206 that he cannot respond in substance but must make believe. Any claim to be a lawyer by an internet handle is meaningless. Citations to and quotes of competent legal authority are not. My quotes and citations outweigh your brain farts, such as your still hilarious about what acts do, or do not, constitute a crime of one person against another person. Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless...." It is correct to state that the DoI, a political statement, refers to inalienable rights, such as the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except for their slaves, and the inalienable right to life. It is correct to state that the DoI has never been adopted as the law of any jurisdiction. The paramount law of the United States explicitly provides for capital punishment. While you maintain that the right to life is an inalienable right that man can not take away, the law of the land provides for executions. The several states and the United States have executed man and woman, using such methods as firing squad, hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. The objects of the exercise found their supposed inalienable right was quite alienable. Of course, the person ineligible to possess a weapon, or if the weapon was unlawful to possess, would be guilty of illegal possession of a weapon. The right to self-defense does not authorize unlawful possession of a weapon. In the Bernhard Goetz case, he was found not guilty of four counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault in the first degree, but was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (N.Y.P.L. 265.02). Goetz served time as a result of the criminal conviction. People v Pons, Ct App NY, 68 NY2d 264, 266 (1986) Juries have consistently found the guilty party to be guilty, contrary to your baseless claim to the contrary. The right to self-defense does not infer a right to unlawful possession of a weapon.
Comments (210 - 255) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI have a sneaking suspicion he won't be here long
#170. To: CZ82 (#169)
(Edited)
That he is still on everyone's mind and bugs the Hell out of them with the mere mention of his name...
#171. To: Liberator (#165)
is unmistakable.
#172. To: Gatlin (#170)
#173. To: Liberator, tpaine (#165)
Kluane National Park and Reserve are two units of Canada's national park system, located in the extreme southwestern corner of Yukon, Canada.
#174. To: CZ82 (#172)
#175. To: tpaine (#155)
[tpaine] Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
To: tpaine
To: tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]
#176. To: tpaine, buckeroo (#160)
The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government.
By what lawful authority or power was the "perpetual union" under the Articles of Confederation destroyed, and a new union of ELEVEN states formed?
#177. To: tpaine, buckeroo (#160)
The declaration of independence is the document that suggests that principle.
#178. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, gatlin, Y'ALL (#175)
And then there is Jim Rob's summation of tpaine as "inflicting pain is your game." -------- To: tpaine - Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. - 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
Your game has not changed in over 10 years. You spout utter nonsense and attempt to frustrate others until a flame war erupts. Then you try to report someone and have them banned. You are one sick puppy.
#179. To: tpaine (#153)
[tpaine #153] I posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
Amendment II
To: tpaine
#180. To: nolu chan (#179)
Your game has not changed in over 10 years. You spout utter nonsense and attempt to frustrate others until a flame war erupts. Then you try to report someone and have them banned.
As Jim Rob summed you up, inflicting pain is your game. You strive to be a pain in the ass and see if you can get a reaction.
#181. To: tpaine, misterwhite, Gatlin (#178)
Thanks for the link (at #147) to that old thread, as it proves my point completely.. You gave up the discussion shortly after the excerpts you just posted because you couldn't refute my answers. --- I urge anyone here to read the complete thread to verify.
[tpaine] If the Founders wanted to refer to individuals they would have simply said, "the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms ...".
[tpaine] Geez Louise. You want THIS court to interpret the second amendment? How about:
#66. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#57)
Both the Miller and the Heller Courts issued opinions. -- SCOTUS opinions are NOT law.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Both of you seem to imagine that the other branches of our Fed/state/local governments are constitutionally bound to conform to supreme court opinions.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
"Could you please source this to something that James Madison wrote or said?"
"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
Exactly what I meant when I said the Heller court ignored Miller. That is NOT what Miller said.
"Heller's holding prevails over Miller's dicta."
Yes. But don't pretend for a minute that Heller's holding was based on Miller's dicta.
The holding in Heller is as convoluted as the holding in Roe v Wade. For example, in Heller, "the people" refers to individuals if it's a right, but "the people" refers to a group if it's a power.
If the Founders wanted to refer to individuals they would have simply said, "the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms ...".
Geez Louise. You want THIS court to interpret the second amendment? How about:
At the time the second amendment was written, handguns were "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". What few there were, they were carried concealed by criminals for nefarious purposes.
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state....
The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. . . . The great object is, that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Therefore, the court could conclude handguns are not protected by the second amendment, using the exact same argument they used in Heller. AND, that ruling would apply nationwide.
#182. To: tpaine (#180)
Whatever. -- You're repeating yourself again. --- Get some new lines...
To: tpaine
Constitution & Law
See other Constitution & Law Articles
Source: volokh conspiracy
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 5, 2015
Author: Eugene Volokh
Post Date: 2015-01-05 22:01:50 by tpaine
Comments: 66
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSource: volokh conspiracy
In January 2014 The Volokh Conspiracy migrated to the Washington Post and was moved behind a paywall in June 2014.
#2. To: Willie Green (#1)
#3. To: Willie Green (#1) From Wikipedia:
#4. To: Willie Green, Y'ALL (#1) (Edited) This Article asks how we might theorize and respond to these more paradoxical challenges to the status quo. We seek to identify, define, and elucidate the phenomenon we call uncivil obedience. In important respects, uncivil obedience is the mirror image of civil disobedience. On most accounts, civil disobedience consists of an open violation of law and a willingness to submit to punishment.
#5. To: Willie Green, All (#1) So I don't know how you guys want to handle copyright infringement issues, but from my perspective, I'd only post excerpts from what's freely available on the web & totally avoid posting anything that's behind a paywall.
#6. To: sysadmin (#5) (Edited) URL Source: [None]
Post Date: 2015-01-05 22:01:50 by tpaine
#7. To: sysadmin (#5)
#8. To: Gatlin (#6) Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
#9. To: Palmdale (#8) Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
#10. To: Gatlin, Palmdale, tpaine (#9)
#11. To: sysadmin, threatens bannings, Y'ALL (#5) Anyone caught deliberately posting material from a source that has prohibited its distribution will be banned.
There are not too many things that I'd consider taking that kind of action for, but illegal activity fits the bill. If anyone wants to challenge copyright laws feel free to do so on your own server.
#12. To: tpaine (#11) I'd say we should wait and see if the washpost sends us another infringement notice. -- I'd bet that since we no longer have an 'owner' (subject to finding Goldies will), that they simply won't bother, and so will no one else.
#183. To: tpaine (#180)
You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned.
To: tpaine
#184. To: Liberator (#165)
Kluane National Park and Reserve are two units of Canada's national park system, located in the extreme southwestern corner of Yukon, Canada.
#185. To: nolu chan (#183)
#186. To: tpaine (#185)
Why are you repeatedly reposting that tired old post from JR?
[tpaine] You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned.
To: tpaine
#187. To: Gatlin (#174)
I think the correct analogy would be "amuses the hell out of them".
#188. To: nolu chan, poor thing, uses JR for support. (#186)
You poor thing. Jim Rob would not take your abuse report seriously.
#189. To: tpaine (#188)
To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred.
To: Eagle Eye
#190. To: nolu chan, trying to prove his point by citing JR at FR (#189)
Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse?
#191. To: tpaine (#190)
I urge anyone to read the whole thread for context. It was a very fun time for most of us at FR ---- Except for JR and his band of sick sycophants.
'Flame war' or Constitutional debate?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648477/posts?q=1&&page=201
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648911/posts
'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid-discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control.
-- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions.. To: tpaine
To: tpaine
To: Eagle Eye
To: tpaine
To: Sandy
To: tpaine
#192. To: nolu chan (#191)
To: tpaine --- I'll ask John to start a new topic called "Whine and Cheese" just for you. Thanks, Jim ----- 40 posted on 3/20/2002, 9:33:42 PM by Jim Robinson
And the unanswered question remains, How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse?
#193. To: tpaine (#192)
Get a life. Find a new hobby. -- Or rave on, and continue your obsessive- compulsive behaviour. It's becoming funny/weird.
#10. To: sysadmin, gatlin, Y'ALL (#5)
I also thank TC for his contributions to help improve LP. I noticed he tried to talk some common sense to a couple of stalkers and agitators to have them see the error in their ways. I doubt it worked and I will not know since I have them on bozo. Gatlin
#16. To: Palmdale, sysadmin, Y'ALL (#14)
Pthe tpoor ptattle ptale... ---- Palmdale
#17. To: tpaine, Palmdale, All (#16)
Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning.
#18. To: sysadmin (#17)
#19. To: Palmdale (#18)
Sorry about the silly words. I'll try to be less of a tpettifogger starting at some unspecified date in the near future.
#20. To: tpaine (#16)
To: Palmdale, sysadmin, Y'ALL Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning.
#194. To: nolu chan (#193)
(Edited)
#195. To: tpaine (#194)
Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them.
#39. To: TooConservative, Y'ALL (#8)
Nolu is correct. Every portion of the Constitution can be amended. Or it could be abolished entirely.
#79. To: nolu chan (#73)
Nolu Chan -- The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. --- I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation.
A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case.
Your posting your wingnut nonsense certainly does not prove your point.
#82. To: tpaine (#79)
Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks...
#89. To: nolu chan (#75)
#75. To: tpaine, tomder55 (#53)
The constitutionality of the 18th was challenged in 1920. The SCOTUS declined to issue an opinion on that specific issue, and left it at that, whereupon damn near everyone ignored the 'amendment, until it was repealed.
In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution.
The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes.
This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root.
1. Eighteenth Amendment, with respect to its subject-matter, held within the power to amend given by article 5, and valid.
#196. To: nolu chan (#195)
(Edited)
Yes, everybody else is unstable.
You poor baby. You accuse everyone of trying to start a flame war with you. On this thread you started your modus operandi at your #39 to TooConservative.--- You continued your modus operandi at your #79 to myself, nolu chan.
I have been documenting your pulling this same stunt at this site and other sites. By doing it with me (again), you invited the rebuttal. Sometimes the truth hurts. I am not flaming you, I am coldly, almost robotically, destroying your whines.
#197. To: tpaine (#196)
Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them.
To: bvw
Homosexual sodomy is a criminal act
To: Illbay
193 - roscoe
- Can you?
196 posted on 12/07/2002 1:05 PM PST by tpaine
How am I defrauded? How am I forced?
209 - illb
Unless I'm really stupid, and let my customers disturb the peace, you wouldn't even know we were there, correct? Give JS & I an example of a 'criminal' act we could commit upon *you*, roscoe, -- that would injure you without using force or fraud.
yukon tpaine without using force or fraud.
#198. To: nolu chan (#197)
--- I am compelled to comply.
#199. To: tpaine (#198)
You reAlly are going off the deep end with your last post, my boy. I'd recommend a mental health counselor, but I don't know any.
#200. To: nolu chan (#199)
That one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent.
#201. To: tpaine (#200)
Your mistaken opinions about my character have been noted and you are entitled to them, but you really should lighten up, for your own mental health..
To: Roscoe; Illbay; bvw
Other than you and young Sprout's own imaginations and wanna-be-ism can you give any historical support for your novel definition of crime?
218 - roscoe lies -
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]
#202. To: nolu chan (#201)
#203. To: tpaine (#202)
Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can..
To: tpaine; Kevmo
#204. To: nolu chan (#203)
Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness.
You can only try to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to understand why your comments on criminal law are so absurd.
Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal.
#205. To: tpaine (#204)
[tpaine #200] I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed..
[tpaine #202] Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can..
Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal.
To: tpaine; Kevmo
#30. To: robertpaulsen, tolsti, yall (#28)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
#206. To: nolu chan, continues reposting old threads, in an obsessive effort to 'win' something? (#205)
»I see that you have entered your excuse making phase to explain why you are incapable of discerning what is so boneheaded about your discussion of criminal law quoted in my #197 and #201. Your abject lack of legal knowledge, i.e. not knowing what you were talking about, now leaves you helpless to to do anything but bluster and bloviate. It is fun to watch. --- While I have not claimed to be a lawyer, you allusion to my purported politically correct law school education is your way of explaining why your own knowledge of law is revealed to be so deficient. It is a crutch to explain the boneheaded nature of your discussion of criminal law.
As for your general legal acumen, the following is a fun example:
In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's -----
#207. To: tpaine (#206)
Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions.
It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away.
If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent.
In People v Almodovar (62 N.Y.2d 126, supra), where defendant was charged with counts of murder, assault and criminal possession of a weapon, we held that the court correctly refused to charge justification as a defense to criminal possession of a weapon, second degree. There, defendant claimed that he came into possession of the weapon by wresting control of it from the victim who had attacked him with a gun and a screwdriver. We concluded that "the only charge defendant was entitled to on the [possession] count of the indictment was temporary innocent possession" (id., at p 130) and that any benefit "he was entitled to because of the claim of self-defense pertained to the use of a weapon and he received that when the court charged justification in connection with the counts of attempted murder and assault" (id., at pp 130-131). Emphasizing that crimes involving possession of a weapon are distinct from those involving its use, we observed that once "the unlawful possession of the weapon is established, the possessory crime is complete and any unlawful use of the weapon is punishable as a separate crime" (id., at p 130).
#208. To: nolu chan, continuing on with his strange obsession.. (#207)
In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's -----
It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence,
#209. To: tpaine (#208)
yukon tpaine once again demonstrates his yukonesque to spew ad hominems and blather about imaginary victories when he cannot respond in substance because he has been shown, yet again, to not know what he is talking about, as with his fun debate about what does, or does not, constitute a crime by one person against another. Poor fella is still running and hiding like a trapped rat from that one. yukon tpaine cannot explain the constitutional provision for capital crimes. The death penalty is in the Constitution, the purported inalienable right to life (or guns) is not. Inalienable rights are political rhetoric, not law. The capital crimes of the 5th Amdt and the attendant executions are law. It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence,
yukon tpaine would consider rock 'n' roll hits to be people beating up on each other. It is a mark of his desperation. yukon tpaine has trouble explaining how his inalienable right to keep and bear arms by everyone asserts a right to keep and bear arms by lunatics, such as himself, and by prison inmates. Either the claimed right is inalienable or it is not. Use in self-defense does not excuse unlawful possession of a firearm or other weapon by anyone. I provide the specific case of Bernhard Goetz who served time for unlawful possession of a firearm, even though he was acquitted of all other charges in the subway shooting of four yoots. And I provide the court opinion in Pons. Faced with proof that his claims are bullcrap, yukon tpaine predictably blathers. In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's -----
It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence,
Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions.
It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away.
If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent.
In People v Almodovar (62 N.Y.2d 126, supra), where defendant was charged with counts of murder, assault and criminal possession of a weapon, we held that the court correctly refused to charge justification as a defense to criminal possession of a weapon, second degree. There, defendant claimed that he came into possession of the weapon by wresting control of it from the victim who had attacked him with a gun and a screwdriver. We concluded that "the only charge defendant was entitled to on the [possession] count of the indictment was temporary innocent possession" (id., at p 130) and that any benefit "he was entitled to because of the claim of self-defense pertained to the use of a weapon and he received that when the court charged justification in connection with the counts of attempted murder and assault" (id., at pp 130-131). Emphasizing that crimes involving possession of a weapon are distinct from those involving its use, we observed that once "the unlawful possession of the weapon is established, the possessory crime is complete and any unlawful use of the weapon is punishable as a separate crime" (id., at p 130).
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]