Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

S'ok - my comment was meant for him, to call out his incessant trolling.

 

Yes, every progressive Democrat and Republican should start pushing hard for the repeal of the 2nd amendment right now.

 

Agree completely.
Can't happen soon enough

 

You have a very strange interpretation of the ruling in miller. Have you ever actually READ it yourself?


Second: Are you saying either the 'necessary and proper' clause or the 'general welfare' clause DO anything on their own?

 

No, as already explained it was you thinking that Cruiskshank a case about federalism and natural rights was somehow THE SAME REASON that a private entity on a private platform did not implicate 1st amendment rights.
Its not the same reason, its a distinct principle. Your blurring of that line does no one any good, least of all the discussion.
Correction of such misapprehension of the law is my civic duty.

I did not alter anything in your response. You're in violation of more than one forum rule here friend. Reform yourself.

 

No! Very lame excuse!

Your original response was

My statement was that, because Facebook is not the government, banning Trump was not a violation of his 1st A rights.

I don't give a CRAP about Cruiskshank. You responded to MY statement by re-stating EXACTLY what I said. After which you claimed that what I said was "misapprehension as to the law."

And then you made this worse by INSERTING a quote I did not use as if THAT were what I was answering to. And now you make up some childish excuse for all of the above.

In one word, every time you post you dig yourself deeper and deeper into the hole. YOUR response should have been "Sorry, I misread". But instead you got yourself spinning into a spiral of dishonesty.

Your NEXT response SHOULD be "Sorry, I misread". I will patiently await for it.

 

And its not, and Cruickshank doesn't juxtapose a federal with a private entity.
So saying Cruickshank is THE SAME REASON why a private entity can't violate your constitutional right to speak by not letting you speak on a private platform is an incorrect statement of law.

And yet you responded to a point about Cruickshank and claimed it was THE SAME REASON why a private entity could not harm your 1st amendment rights. Its not THE SAME REASON, which is what I've said.

I didn't insert a quote in your post. You're violating forum rules with this nonsense claim.

 

YOUR response does.

 

Because YOUR POST DID and your misapprehension of the law required correction. Again.

 

So you WERE responding to my post. And you repeated what I said.

The remark was not relevant to my point. But you chose to make a big deal

 

As stated five times now : Yes, I was responding to your post and correcting your misapprehension of the law.
I did not in fact repeat what you said in the first post. I only had to repeat what you said when you denied saying it despite it being written down.

The remark was relevant, your point was incorrect as they were not THE SAME REASON.
See how that works?

 

You DID repeat what I said in your first post. And then you got yourself all tied up in knots. BTW that comment was only intended to agree with THAT part of the post and continue with my point.

 

In fact I did not. Why would you say otherwise when 1) we were both here and so should know what happened and 2) its there in writing you can easily find by following the replied to arrows in the post?

 

ME: "...Facebook banning Donald Trump is not a violation of his constitutional rights."

YOU: "Facebook is not the ****ing government.
It cannot violate your 1st amendment rights...."

In fact, you did.

 

No, I was just suggesting how (in a layman's eyes) a judge might apply the concept of 'promoting the general welfare' as a principle by which to regulate rights. Even without the wording, I should think regulation would rely on common sense thinking which gives rise to the language, I should think.

First, we both know I'm not a lawyer and lack your training, so clearly you realize I'm not approaching the subject perhaps as robustly as a lawyer might

If my interpretation of United States v. Miller was not clear, perhaps I oversimplified the ruling. To clarify, as I understand it, the Supreme Court in Miller held that Congress has the power to regulate firearms that have a connection to interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The "necessary and proper" clause and the "general welfare" clause, as you mentioned, provide additional basis for the federal government's power to regulate firearms, but the main basis for this power lies in the Commerce Clause.

But, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. And, despite the fact that lawyers disagree with each other all the time, I defer to your infinite lawyerly wisdom and knowledge.

In my view, I think the real problem is the wording of the Second Amendment itself.

 

So yes you are saying general welfare is a thing that has its own legs.

The .gov can use the specific powers granted it in Art 1 Sec 8. Necessary and proper and general welfare do not constitute individual powers they grant you action in service to those powers.
If your reasoning is 'general welfare' or 'necessary and proper' you're not going to get far. Your reasoning has to be 'specific grant of power to do certain things in Art 1 sec 8, necessary and proper therefore I want to do X".


That's an understatement. You've never actually read miller or you'd at least be able to state the holding. Go read the case itself, for yourself.

 

*sigh* Why must you do this?

That's not repeating what you said ffs.

 

Miller does not turn on the interstate commerce clause, and said clause is not invoked in the decision of the matter in front of the court.
Part of the question revolves around the tax stamp, and the question of if the NFA 1934 is a revenue measure; the allegation is that it is not, but an attempt to :"usurp" the police power of the states.
The other part revolves around Congress's power to regulate the militia.
So.... You're not just wrong, but completely wrong.

 

Miller was a case created by FDR's DOJ to uphold what they knew was the dubious constitutionality of the NFA. So they picked a hard core gun banning judge, and an odious defendant who was dying of cancer and would not be around to present an argument in the higher courts.

 

yeah! threadkiller! nothing left to discuss after this mic drop! BOOM!

 

read this article-it is a well written-even handed examination of the Miller case written by an then associate at one of the most prestigious and competitive (to get hired into) law firms in the USA. He is now a professor of law somewhere
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delive...02022122015119005115122097&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

 

You forgot: And bribed the defense attorney with a federal court appointment after he submitted no evidence in the case.

 

*deep sigh*

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

It is not a violation on either platform, you can actually read my argument. Does it say the word 'twitter'? No? How then do you believe I'm referring to twitter? Is the twitter in the room with us right now?

I did not ALTER your response, quote me otherwise stop violating forum rules ffs.

 

Really? You want unarmed, by the repeal of the 2nd, people to disarm, armed violent individuals?