History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

Isn't this included in your original post?

In History 101, we talked about why the 2nd A does not mention or refer to an individual right to own weapons (notion that was rejected and ridiculed by the framers).

 

Not sure I understand your question. Do you need a link to the History 101 thread?

I think I mis-copied a link I included in that OP. Here you go!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

 

That's better, thnk you.

 

Many have . But these threads are about the 2nd A as written, discussed and passed by Congress (the authority that SHOULD legislate) and approved by the states. Not about legislation passed by the Supreme Court. And BTW.. please don't start with the nonsense about the Supreme Court not legislating. They absolutely do! We're already way past that naïve nonsense. So take this statement as you will, if you still don't agree. Because it's irrelevant to this thread.

 

If I had responded to that OP I might have agreed with you, but that's not the OP I responded to. But, even having said that, I disagree that the Supreme Court legislates. It does not, it sets legal precedent and that functions like legislation but is not. Only Congress can legislate. Executive agencies also place regulations that act like law but are not.

Secondly I think your agrument is based on the prefactory clause which you think limits the operative clause. I think it has no power at all, it's just a preamble.

 

Your posts are getting weirder and weirder. You QUOTED the OP. And now you say that's not what you were responding to?

When precedent is not based on the law, IT becomes the Law of the Land. Therefore, it's legislation. Insofar as anybody claims that the Heller ruling is based on the letter or the intention of the 2nd A, it is legislation because, as these threads demonstrates, it is NOT.

Easy as that.

However, these threads are not about Heller or about how law is created. They are about the letter and the intention of the 2nd A. If you want to discuss that, there are four threads that explain my arguments. If you want to discuss something else, open your own thread.

You think wrong! If you want to discuss what I DO claim, you will need to read the OPs of these threads, and share with us if you have anything to contribute, in the corresponding thread.

 

I responded to this thread, not to any previous threads.

As far as your comment about courts legislating, you are wrong. Precident can serrve as law, I've already said that, but it is not legislation. You've tried to make your case by resorting to grammatical scructure, definitions, etc, very technical, but it seems you're a little sloppy when it comes to "legislation." Functioning in place of legislation is not legislation. Perhaps you can give me the definition of legislation.

 

It's the law but passing it is not legislation sounds like a very tenuous (to be generous) distinction. Heller is the Law of the Land. Period! And it will be until a new court decision overturns it. However, that's not the topic of this thread.

legislation
noun
leg·is·la·tion ˌle-jə-ˈslā-shən

1: the action of legislating
specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules (such as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization
the major function of Congress is legislation—W. S. Sayre

2: the enactments of a legislator or a legislative body
legislation to help distressed homeowners

3: a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body
She proposed new legislation to protect the environment.

 

Of course it does.

 

bWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I accept your surrender.

It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood
It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood

Thanks for playing....

 

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I made it. And supported it.
And you have no choice but to tuck your tail and fun from it.
Like you just did.

It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood
It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood

Thanks for playing....

 

You've made good points overall so I won't continue to go back and forth over this minor issue.

 

BAWAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

You STILL think the USSC creates and passes legislation!!!

BAWAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments << An obvious falsehood
It only means I did my due diligence. << An obvious falsehood
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. << An obvious falsehood

Thanks for playing....

 

Whatever point you think you made has nothing to do with this thread.

Tip from the pros: if you want to MAKE a point, open a thread on the topic and make it. You know... like I do in this one.

 

Dude...you're long past the point of giving up on actual debate and just filibustering.

 

No, you are not. Which is simply proven by how many times we have had to repeatedly correct you and actually quote from the document itself.

You are paraphrasing it in a way that you want to believe, not what it actually says.

 

He's fishing from a slow--moving boat, so...

 

"Paraphrasing" means saying the same thing using different wording to achieve better clarity. I am quoting it and paraphrasing it in order to illustrate a point. There is NO way to correctly paraphrase and keeping the same meaning as interpreted by any English speaker with an average level of education, that would NOT make my point.

 

"That is not dead that can eternal lie, and stranger eons even death itself may die" -

Or,

"That is not broke which can eternal spend, and with strange accounting debt itself may end" -

Same thing right golem?

 

my favorite is claiming that if the government cannot prevent you from keeping a firearm, it still can prevent you from OWNING a firearm. unmitigated bullshit

 

That's what people who fish from a slow-moving boat do.

 

No it does not. Especially if you are trying to claim it is a quote and it is not. That is known as "lying".

 

Yeah... they both mean that grammar is not your friend.

BTW, it's "aeons". NOT "eons". The difference is important.

I'm afraid this is not the place for you to learn basic English grammatical concepts. Most of us went through that process in Elementary School.

 

You are afraid of a lot of things.

 

Scalia, in his discussion of the 2A’s text in the Heller majority opinion ion is one of the better discussions of original meaning… and, note, Heller still stands. A simplified interpretation;

Read the Heller decision written by Scalia.
For a simpler discussion;