Judge Roberts backlash

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Constitution does not REQUIRE a standing militia, and no part of it says that it does.

Wrong. The first half of the Second Amendment requires it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

SO, once again, I believe you are incorrect,

The legal history of the Second Amendment shows that I am exactly correct.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

and no serious legal scholar takes your position on this issue.

I don't know if that is the case, but it is irrelevant even if it happens to be true. I am fully capable of defending my arguments without needing a third party to agree with me.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Too bad the folks who wrote that aren't around anymore so that we can ask 'em what they meant.

That's OK. They made their intent abundantly clear.

DrewDad wrote:

Wait! I know, let's read what they actually enacted to find out what they meant.
Because, you know, those snippets you quoted didn't make it into the Constitution.

They didn't have to make it into the Constitution. They still shed light on what was intended.

(One of the quotes did make it into a legal document, for what it's worth.)

DrewDad wrote:

What you use for "logic" is almost Gungasnakian in its anal-genesis.

I doubt you could find flaws with either of ours logic.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Wrong. The first half of the Second Amendment requires it.

Actually, it doesn't. The wording of the second amendment does not include the words 'require' or 'required.' That's just your INTERPRETATION of the amendment, which is a false one. And, once again, you are relying upon a subjective judgment of the document for your evidence.

Quote:

The legal history of the Second Amendment shows that I am exactly correct.

The opinion of two people who were part of the committee who wrote the Constitution does not provide proof of the meaning of any part of the document. It only provides their opinion as to what that part meant. That's not evidence that your case is correct.

Quote:

I don't know if that is the case, but it is irrelevant even if it happens to be true. I am fully capable of defending my arguments without needing a third party to agree with me.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you are not. You certainly aren't doing a good job so far.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

The second amendment was written by the First Congress, not the framers of the constitution.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Duh, I should have remembered that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
What you use for "logic" is almost Gungasnakian in its anal-genesis.

I doubt you could find flaws with either of ours logic.

<snork>

Keep trippin', dude.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Too bad the folks who wrote that aren't around anymore so that we can ask 'em what they meant.

Wait! I know, let's read what they actually enacted to find out what they meant.

Because, you know, those snippets you quoted didn't make it into the Constitution.

What you use for "logic" is almost Gungasnakian in its anal-genesis.

What's even more absurd is that he writes as though the constitution were "being considered" and amendments to it at the same time. It's kind of hard to frame amendments to a document which does not exist. When the constitution was sent to the states for ratification, the first and loudest objection was the lack of an explicit enumeration of civil rights. Those who supported the ratification of the constitution promiesd that that would be the first order of business, were the constitution ratified. When it had been ratified, and a Congress seated, they kept faith and proposed twelve amendments to the constitution. The last ten of those twelve proposed amendments were ratifited and became what we call the bill of rights. The first proposed amendment will likely never be ratified. The second proposed amendment was ratified in 1992.

It appears that Oralloy just makes this **** up as he goes along.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, that's OK, you're arguing with Oralloy who just makes **** up to suit his polemic. That criticism was aimed at his fairty tale version of history.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

you're an ignorant dork!

Liar.

cicerone imposter wrote:

At least my trash brain works better than yours.

Not even close. You're as stupid as a fencepost.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your assumption that the US Constitution has anything to do with the UK's laws just proves your ignorance.

Why don't you run along and find a thread more suited to your intellectual limitations.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
Wrong. The first half of the Second Amendment requires it.

Actually, it doesn't.

Nope. It does.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The wording of the second amendment does not include the words 'require' or 'required.'

But the meaning of it does.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's just your INTERPRETATION of the amendment, which is a false one.

My interpretation is based on the express intent of the people responsible for its creation, and also on the legal history of the right.

That makes my interpretation the correct one.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And, once again, you are relying upon a subjective judgment of the document for your evidence.

I provided both the intent of the people who crafted it, along with the legal history of the right. There was nothing subjective about it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
The legal history of the Second Amendment shows that I am exactly correct.

The opinion of two people who were part of the committee who wrote the Constitution does not provide proof of the meaning of any part of the document.

It does when they are expressing the concern that led directly to the crafting of the amendment in question.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It only provides their opinion as to what that part meant.

Yes, but (especially in the case of Patrick Henry) since it was that very opinion that led to the amendment in question, that opinion is vital evidence as to what they were trying to achieve with the amendment.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's not evidence that your case is correct.

Sure it is.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
I don't know if that is the case, but it is irrelevant even if it happens to be true. I am fully capable of defending my arguments without needing a third party to agree with me.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you are not.

Then you are wrong yet again.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You certainly aren't doing a good job so far.

Yes I am. You may choose to gloss over all the evidence I raised, and instead just repeat empty claims that I am wrong, but that does not change the reality that I posted compelling evidence as to what the amendment means.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

oralloy wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
What you use for "logic" is almost Gungasnakian in its anal-genesis.

I doubt you could find flaws with either of ours logic.

<snork>

Keep trippin', dude.

You have a big mouth, but there is no chance you'll ever be able to back it up with a coherent argument.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

What's even more absurd is that he writes as though the constitution were "being considered" and amendments to it at the same time. It's kind of hard to frame amendments to a document which does not exist.

When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, it was "being considered" by those states.

And those states were proposing amendments to it at the same time as they were considering it.

Setanta wrote:

When the constitution was sent to the states for ratification, the first and loudest objection was the lack of an explicit enumeration of civil rights. Those who supported the ratification of the constitution promiesd that that would be the first order of business, were the constitution ratified. When it had been ratified, and a Congress seated, they kept faith and proposed twelve amendments to the constitution.

Actually, the states (most of them at least) proposed those amendments while they were ratifying the Constitution.

By the time the First Congress had been seated, the amendments had already been proposed.

Setanta wrote:

It appears that Oralloy just makes this **** up as he goes along.

Nope. It's all 100% fact.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Well, that's OK, you're arguing with Oralloy who just makes **** up to suit his polemic. That criticism was aimed at his fairty tale version of history.

Nonsense. Feel free to show even a single fact that I have wrong.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Wrong. The first half of the Second Amendment requires it.

Actually, it doesn't. The wording of the second amendment does not include the words 'require' or 'required.' That's just your INTERPRETATION of the amendment, which is a false one. And, once again, you are relying upon a subjective judgment of the document for your evidence.

Cycloptichorn

nec·es·sar·y
[nes-uh-ser-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural nec·es·sar·ies.
adjective
1. being essential, indispensable, or requisite: a necessary part of the motor.
2. happening or existing by necessity: a necessary change in our plans.
3. acting or proceeding from compulsion or necessity; not free; involuntary: a necessary agent.
4. Logic .
a. (of a proposition) such that a denial of it involves a self-contradiction.
b. (of an inference or argument) such that its conclusion cannot be false if its supporting premises are true.
c. (of a condition) such that it must exist if a given event is to occur or a given thing is to exist. Compare sufficient ( def. 2 ) .

I believe Definition 1 would be used in this case. What else would the word be used for in the 2nd amendment? Why use that particular word if not to require a militia? Are you really trying to parse the word necessary from the amendment?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You've been challenged by almost everybody about this topic, and that proves you don't have a clue.

You wrote,

Quote:

Not even close. You're as stupid as a fencepost.

Again proving your total ignorance.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

The words 'necessary' and the words 'required' are not synonyms - even if you believe it's convenient for your argument for them to be.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

True; being necessary or "essential," is not based on legal laws or requirements. If it's legal, it would say so.

Even in the case of car insurance, two states do not require liability insurance, but one requires a $60,000 deposit with the DMV, and both require that any damage to the other party be paid for. It may be determined to be necessary or essential, but the end result is still legal liability if one is at fault for any accident.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

It makes you a flippin' loony, is what it makes you.

The FBI will be blasting loud music outside your compound any day, now.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The words 'necessary' and the words 'required' are not synonyms - even if you believe it's convenient for your argument for them to be.

Cycloptichorn

Didn't say they were synonyms.

But, if I should say that oxygen is necessary for humans to live, would you then say that oxygen is not required for humans to live?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Stop feeding the troll.

1 Reply

Judge Roberts backlash

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know