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: 79763
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 The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.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 (1-146) not displayed.
.
.
.
#147. To: tpaine (#146)
Well, bless your heart. I can see how desperate you are to see what else I have written on the right to keep and bear arms, but you seem to be too incompetent to read any of that and must rely on assertions spewed from your imagination. Here, read about the right to keep and bear arms. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25 It seems clear that the Supremes indicated that in 1939. More recently, they indicated "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) Note however, this quote from the article. After Heller, there is not much left of Miller. FWIW, my personal opinion is that Scalia's Opinion in Heller is correct. Miller has been sharply narrowed by Heller. Miller does very little. Heller at 625. Heller at 592 Heller at 579-581 a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5 Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution.
You have been taking this same verbal dump on the internet for at least 8 years. Here is my answer to you from 8 years ago. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=All&#C99 nolu chan to tpaine. tpaine's #86 was also addressed to robertpaulsen. I have not addressed the subject of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but for the record I will provide my opinion on it. I do not hold the opinion you have repeatedly attempted to attribute to me. Many amendments assert something on the order of "Congress shall make no law...." The Second Amendment was intentionally phrased differently: At that time, the militia was not the National Guard but "We the People." The Federal standing army was very small. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln had a standing army of only 75,000 men. This was intentional. The protection against an power-grabbing Federal government was an armed citizenry, and the State Militias were intended to be able to be more powerful than the Federal standing army and act as our protection against Federal expansion. The right to keep and bear arms was then as fundamental as any other right, such as free speech. I find the right to be a personal one and reject the notion that it only applies to protecting the right to arm the National Guard or something similar. At the time of passage, "we the people" and the militia were synonymous. Its purpose is to protect the right of "we the people" as individuals to keep and bear arms. This should prevent the Federal government from infringing in any way. Interesting are the musings of Laurence Tribe on the observations of Akhil Amar to the effect that the right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship, and therefore assertable against the states as such. Further, as a right of individuals, it would be assertable against the Federal government. I would hold that the right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship at the time of the framing and, therefore, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, it cannot be abridged by state law. [...] nolu chan posted on 2007-10-31 21:36:38 ET [Locked]
Seek psychiatric help. You have been acting like yukon now for at least 8 years. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=100#C100 Chan: Not true, -- you are arguing for the concept "that the Bill of Rights [thus the 2nd] did not originally apply to the States. They were restrictions on the Federal government." Admit it. If the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States -- and they were restrictions ONLY on the Federal government, -- then States can claim the power to prohibit arms, -- as California is doing. [...] tpaine posted on 2007-10-31 21:36:39 ET [Locked] http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=104#C104 I repeat again, for possible penetration -- I believe the RKBA should be protected against Federal or State infringement. Why do you keep repeating that silly bilge? You can repeat it until you are blue in the face and I still made no such argument. If I had, you would quote what I said, rather than offer your blather instead. That the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states is law that has been well settled over two centuries. That you do not like that fact does not change it. As I explicitly stated, that situation changed with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the Fourteenth Amendment is nearly 140 years old, it is time to stop hyperventilating about the state of the law before it. I am in agreement with paulsen where he stated that the BOR did not originally apply to the states and has since not been fully incorporated. Two centuries of judicial precedent leaves that as settled law. I did not express any agreement (or disagreement) about RKBA. I gave you my opinion in #99. At that time, the militia was not the National Guard but "We the People." The Federal standing army was very small. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln had a standing army of only 75,000 men. This was intentional. The protection against an power-grabbing Federal government was an armed citizenry, and the State Militias were intended to be able to be more powerful than the Federal standing army and act as our protection against Federal expansion. The right to keep and bear arms was then as fundamental as any other right, such as free speech. I find the right to be a personal one and reject the notion that it only applies to protecting the right to arm the National Guard or something similar. At the time of passage, "we the people" and the militia were synonymous. Its purpose is to protect the right of "we the people" as individuals to keep and bear arms. This should prevent the Federal government from infringing in any way. Interesting are the musings of Laurence Tribe on the observations of Akhil Amar to the effect that the right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship, and therefore assertable against the states as such. Further, as a right of individuals, it would be assertable against the Federal government. I would hold that the right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship and a fundamental right at the time of the framing and, therefore, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, it cannot be abridged by state law. If one holds the right to keep and bear arms as a privilege of national citizenship, it is protected from Federal intervention by the Second Amendment and from State intervention by the Fourteenth Amendment's application of the Second Amendment to the States. Our Constitution's Second Amendment refers to, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It does not establish the RKBA as some new right, but acknowledges it as an existing right which the people brought with them into the Union. As the people never ceded this right, they continue to hold it. The Second Amendment prohibits Federal infringement of a right which predates the Constitution and all of its amendments. The parties to the Constitution were States, not individuals. The Constitution refers to "the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same." In drafting a Constitution, the parties to the Constitution apparently did not see a need to guarantee protection from themselves. The people, acting in their sovereign capacity, organized into political units called states, chose to create a Federal government and prescribe limits for that Federal government. Whatever power was not granted to the Federal government was retained by the States or the people. As demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for all of the following to be true: nolu chan posted on 2007-11-01 0:57:04 ET [Locked]
#136. To: tpaine, CZ82 (#134) I don't think I've noted over the months I've been lurking that there are quite a few of you who too often don't. Kluane posted on 2015-07-10 19:02:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply And then (just like clockwork) yukon comes running to their rescue!! LOL. “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 posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Here's what Chan posted about that subject: -- Now I have no idea WHY my remark above raised such a hissy fit, -- but obviously, that is what Chan posted. As I said before, this discussion is getting bizarro. Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue?
Because man-made documents, such as Amendments may be changed at any tyme. They are not permanent structures in America or anywhere on this planet.
Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? http://ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25">libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25 Well bless your heart too. Thanks for the link 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.
Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue? That is not an answer.. Thanks for your comment, Capt Obvious..
You are welcome. So depite your belief that documents are designed to be permanent fixtures of institutions built by men, ant man or group may change them at any tyme.
Not at all. The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government. Naturally, some aspects of it can be changed at any time, but changing its basic principles would be unconstitutional and render null & void the proposed changes.
So, in your opinion, the US Constitution is "immutable" or "unchangeable" ... where does any document suggest that whether within or without the US Constitution?
The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government. The declaration of independence is the document that suggests that principle.
Nope. Nope. You can't even find permanent interpretations of GOD in any man-made document or otherwise: called the Bible, Koran, etc.
Whatever.. Why don't you direct your energies to harassing gatlin? -- Your pretty good at that..
In this case, tpaine, you are ripe for ridicule, on your own thread, for considering that the documents formulating the foundations of the US Constitution or even the US Government are sacrosanct.
Hyperbole anyone? Whoever suggested that they were sacrosanct?
I've noted over the months I've been lurking that there are quite a few of you who too often don't. Don't you mean...years, yu-klown? Are you out of rehab already? Your boring style is unmistakable. The partial excerpt...the insult -- trademark yu-klown. I guess you ditched the old-new scriptural citing :-( Kluane National Park and Reserve are two units of Canada's national park system, located in the extreme southwestern corner of Yukon, Canada. Lol...
Then, you know that all documents can be changed including the Bill of Rights irrespective of origininal intentions.
Good catch, lib.
;-)
“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.
Comments (187 - 255) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
Seems pretty clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed the second amendment only protects militia-type arms in relation to a militia, doesn't it?
Oddly, Second Amendment scholars have largely ignored Miller. While individual and collective right theorists alike claim Miller supports their position, most provide only a perfunctory account of the case. The few exceptions focus on the text of the opinion, rather than the history of the case, and the context in which it was decided. All conclude Miller is an impenetrable mess.
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.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....”
1. Operative Clause.
“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
#148. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#147)
Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
#149. To: tpaine (#146)
[tpaine #117] And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act..
[tpaine #146] Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
#99. To: tpaine (#86)
[tpaine] So, -- why do you two ~argue for~ the States to have the power to prohibit arms?
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#150. To: tpaine (#146)
[tpaine #146] Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
#100. To: roberpaulsen, nolu chan (#95)
I did not, as you put it, ~argue for~ the States to have the power to prohibit arms. I merely documented that the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States. They were restrictions on the Federal government.
#104. To: tpaine (#101)
So, -- why do you two ~argue for~ the States to have the power to prohibit arms?
Which is it? -- Are you in "perfect agreement" with paulsen? -- Or with our Constitution's 2nd?
Many amendments assert something on the order of "Congress shall make no law...." The Second Amendment was intentionally phrased differently:
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#151. To: tpaine, A K A Stone, Liberator, redleghunter, nativist nationalist (#134)
And typically, like gatlin and grandisland, they quit when challenged. - Pitiful little people..
#152. To: CZ82 (#151)
And then (just like clockwork) yukon comes running to their rescue!! LOL.
#153. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#148)
AKA Stone --- nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution.
He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added]
I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down.
I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt.
What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it.
#154. To: tpaine (#153)
Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue?
#155. To: nolu chan (#147)
Well, bless your heart. I can see how desperate you are to see what else I have written on the right to keep and bear arms, but you seem to be too incompetent to read any of that and must rely on assertions spewed from your imagination. Here, read about the right to keep and bear arms.
#156. To: buckeroo (#154)
Because ---
--- man-made documents, such as Amendments may be changed at any tyme. They are not permanent structures in America or anywhere on this planet.
#157. To: tpaine (#156)
#158. To: buckeroo, y'all (#157)
So depite your belief that documents are designed to be permanent fixtures of institutions built by men, ant man or group may change them at any tyme.
#159. To: tpaine (#158)
The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government.
#160. To: buckeroo (#159)
... where does any document suggest that whether within or without the US Constitution?
#161. To: tpaine (#160)
The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government.
The declaration of independence is the document that suggests that principle [suggests permanency].
#162. To: buckeroo, y'all, gatlin (#161)
You can't even find permanent interpretations of GOD in any man-made document or otherwise: called the Bible, Koran, etc.
#163. To: tpaine (#162)
#164. To: buckeroo (#163)
---sacrosanct ---
#165. To: Kluane, aka yu-klown, tpaine, CZ82, Deckard (#136)
(I don't think)
#166. To: tpaine (#164)
#167. 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.
#168. To: buckeroo (#167)
#169. To: Gatlin (#152)
I 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
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]