I have no idea what Rafa knows but he's a genius level IQ from what my son's best friend says (who is a top 50 touring pro). Scalia was first in his class at Harvard Law. As to what he knows about history-this is what Wiki had to say In 1953, Scalia enrolled at Georgetown University, where he majored in history. He became a champion collegiate debater in Georgetown's Philodemic Society and a critically praised thespian.[22] He took his junior year abroad in Switzerland at the University of Fribourg.[10] Scalia graduated from Georgetown in 1957 as class valedictorian with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. Three of my best friends clerked for him. I suspect I know far more about him though I personally only had a two hour lunch with him when I was at Law school He would eviscerate you as I have done numerous times.
If he knew about history and he made that big mess of reasoning in his Heller legislation, that is even worse! It means he KNEW what he was writing was B.S. and did it anyway to advance a political agenda. What he says there would have given him an F in any local state college History 101 class. Unfortunately, there are no "grades" in SCOTUS legislation. But the historians mentioned above PROVED that he deserved an F anyway.
No. I want to talk about the 2nd A. The fact that you want to change the subject tells me that you have nothing to counter my arguments. I can obliterate any arguments you have about Roe v Wade in a thread about the subject. I bet there you'll be desperately seeking to talk about ...the 2nd A.
the 2A is purely a negative restriction upon a federal government that was never given any proper authority concerning the rights of individual citizens, acting in their private capacity, to own, keep buy, trade use, sell modify, carry or collect arms. The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
I forgot you can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Ok liberal, let's keep it simple for you, let's talk about 2A. Nevertheless there little new to say about 2A given the Constitution is pretty clear, to those with brain and a modicum of common sense.
U.S. Fox News Elderly Philadelphia man running errands turns tables on would-be robbers, emptying his gun
It's against forum rules. But I don't know what you're complaining about. You can't even WALK. Let alone walk and chew gum. You came into a thread about the 2nd A, expecting to talk about abortion? It IS pretty clear. And the OP makes it even clearer for anybody who didn't understand it. Which might be you if you think the quotes you shared were about the 2nd A. They're not! Looks to me like you got yourself into a discussion to try to change the subjece and then didn't know what to do with it when your attempt failed....
ever notice that 1) cop haters/defund the police and those who scream "racist pigs" 2) gun banners 3) and those who make excuses for violent criminals tend to be the same group of leftists ?
Ah! The intent!! Now THERE is something we can really sink our teeth into. The intent is explained in the OP of THIS thread. I moved it here because that is what THIS thread is about. And even more detail in http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ I'd be happy to move the conversation there, if it's more appropriate to THAT topic. I have NO threads about the legality of the "individual right to own weapons". Because I guess that was settled by Scalia's "Heller" legislation which, at least for now (until a non-partisan majority in SCOTUS can be achieved), is "the law of the land". So I don't see any point in debating that. In any case, not interested... But, if you want to show some proficiency in discussing the history LEADING to the 2nd A... here is your chance. Have fun!
That is not "Legislation", as it was a decision by the Supreme Court in a crucial court case. Apparently you are not aware that the Courts make decisions based upon law, they are not involved in the legislation (which is done by legislatures) which actually makes laws. And it was hardly a "Party Line" decision in any ways. The author of the dissenting view was a Ford nominee. He was joined by a Bush nominee, and 2 Clinton nominees. Yet once again you demonstrate clearly how this is just anti-gun nonsense, and your attempt to push propaganda has largely failed.
After which it became the law of the land. Therefore, it's legislation. Off-topic, though. The Supreme Court has been engaged in legislating almost since the first days of this nation. You are sorely uninformed. But, again, off-topic.
When it was then determined to be in violation of the Constitution, when it was thrown out. Vacating an illegal law is not "making" a law. You really do not understand how any of it works, do you?
Yep! In this case it's just plain ol' legislation passed by the Supreme Court. As has been proven by these four threads
can you find a single document or reference to a speech by a founder that even hints ANYONE thought that the federal government should have gun control powers. ? your better argument is arguing against incorporation. It's a losing issue but at least it can be seen as somewhat honest
I haven’t been on this forum very long, but I have been around on other forums. I’ve seen folks who do things like, “Oh, I never actually said that” or “Please quote me where I ever said I want to do <fill in the blank>”. Oddly, the same folks have a tendency to not honestly engage in a discussion, never really support their ideas, but usually couch their posts as grammatical or syntactical riddles. I’m not sure how to deal with such people who really aren’t here for discussion but are only here to “score points”. Sometimes I wonder if simply shunning or boycotting them would be the best course of action.
