As I said, an absolutely absurd "understanding" of the Constitution. Or more concisely, misunderstanding.
oralloy wrote:
Nope. No absurdity, and no misunderstanding.
The Constitution protects the people's right to carry guns when they go about in public.
The Constitution demands that we have a militia. And the Constitution protects
the right of militiamen to own advanced military weaponry and to keep it at home.
My sense of the situation is not that Jack has become an expert
on Constitutional history, but rather that the personal liberty
that its Bill of Rights defends is anathema to Jack's mind,
so he pretends that history did not occur (mental defense by hoax).
I suspect that if he were called upon to support his position
with facts, he 'd just cut & paste the HELLER dissent, without reading it.
Deny it, if u will, Jack.
David
0 Replies
gungasnake
-1
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 01:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Four more years of the same BS...
0 Replies
MontereyJack
2
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 05:11 pm
He was right in 2008. He's still right in 2012. Vote the goddamned obstructionists in Congress out, put Democrats in their place, and we can control the sharks on Wall St. that trashed the economy, we can craft a stimulus package as large as it should have been originally according to the economists, without the obstructionists blocking all sane remedies. Maybe we can finally do what the obstructionists blocked Obamacare from doing as it was conceived: create a single-payer healthcare system, which like those in the rest of the developed world, will cost half as much per capita as our current system does, will increase American longevity, will cover everybody, and will do away with recissions, lifetime insuramce caps from private insurance companies, and cover prior conditions. The only thing we're gonna get from Romney is tax cuts for the rich and higher taxes for everyone else.
He was right in 2008. He's still right in 2012. Vote the goddamned obstructionists in Congress out, put Democrats in their place, and we can control the sharks on Wall St. that trashed the economy,...
The sharks on wallstreet didn't traash the economy, monkeyjerk, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Bork Obunga, and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mack trashed the economy and they USED wallstreet banks in the process.
I've posted this on A2K and so far none of you lying libtards has even attempted to respond to it and anybody would assume that' because there is no response to it:
Hey, oralloy, notice the snaKKKe is using the insults he's used for years on us. The right started the namecalling.
And we've refuted your nonhistorical fantasies a number of times, gunga. You, of course, never paid attention. If you actually look at the timeline, Fannie and Freddie were barred by government lending standards which regulated what they could buy four or five years into the process which the PRIVATE financial industry was creating. It was the PRIVATE financial services industry which created the risky and opaque financial instruments like mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps. It was the PRIVATE financial industry which in a feeding frenzy started selling subprime mortgages to people they kKNEW were in no position to buy them, because they could then slice and dice the mortgages up into derivatives, which they marketed as very low risk, which they were not, to other PRIVATE buyers, ho then assumed the risk, while the original sellers took huge bonuses based on the dollar volume of the crap they sold. It was the PRIVATE financial industry which talked its shills, largely Republican, in Congress and regulatory agencies into lowering capital requirements and increasing the amount of leverage they could use, which let them run up huge debt
, which couldn't be repaid and toppled the market like dominos.
PRIVATE stockholders in Fannie and Freddie saw this going on for years in the PRIVATE market selling to PRIVATE investors. They saw FAnnie and Freddie's shares of the market falling from close to half to about a fifth, while the PRIVATE market was selling all that to PRIVATE investors. Only late in the game, when the market was already awash with bad financial instruments and as it turned out bad debt, did Fannie and Freddie get their reins loosened. They were always minor players in it. Frank advocated affordable and equitable rates for people closed out of the market. He wasn't the one pushing the predatory subprime markets. That was PRIVATE. Remember WaMu? Of course you don't. That was PRIVATE, and typical.
And the economy tanked before Obama was even elected. If you look at the statistics, they were all going down before he got into office. They've all been going up since. If he'd been able to do as much as he wanted to do but was totally opposed by Republicans--he was lucky to get as much stimulus funding as he did because of the obstructionists--we'd be a lot farther along now.
Hey, oralloy, notice the snaKKKe is using the insults he's used for years on us. The right started the namecalling.
And we've refuted your nonhistorical fantasies a number of times, gunga. You, of course, never paid attention. If you actually look at the timeline, Fannie and Freddie were barred by government lending standards which regulated what they could buy four or five years into the process which the PRIVATE financial industry was creating. It was the PRIVATE financial services industry which created the risky and opaque financial instruments like mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps. It was the PRIVATE financial industry which in a feeding frenzy started selling subprime mortgages to people they kKNEW were in no position to buy them, because they could then slice and dice the mortgages up into derivatives, which they marketed as very low risk, which they were not, to other PRIVATE buyers, ho then assumed the risk, while the original sellers took huge bonuses based on the dollar volume of the crap they sold. It was the PRIVATE financial industry which talked its shills, largely Republican, in Congress and regulatory agencies into lowering capital requirements and increasing the amount of leverage they could use, which let them run up huge debt
, which couldn't be repaid and toppled the market like dominos.
PRIVATE stockholders in Fannie and Freddie saw this going on for years in the PRIVATE market selling to PRIVATE investors. They saw FAnnie and Freddie's shares of the market falling from close to half to about a fifth, while the PRIVATE market was selling all that to PRIVATE investors. Only late in the game, when the market was already awash with bad financial instruments and as it turned out bad debt, did Fannie and Freddie get their reins loosened. They were always minor players in it. Frank advocated affordable and equitable rates for people closed out of the market. He wasn't the one pushing the predatory subprime markets. That was PRIVATE. Remember WaMu? Of course you don't. That was PRIVATE, and typical.
And the economy tanked before Obama was even elected. If you look at the statistics, they were all going down before he got into office. They've all been going up since. If he'd been able to do as much as he wanted to do but was totally opposed by Republicans--he was lucky to get as much stimulus funding as he did because of the obstructionists--we'd be a lot farther along now.
0 Replies
MontereyJack
2
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 05:59 pm
Hey, oralloy, notice the snaKKKe is using the insults he's used for years on us. The right started the namecalling.
And we've refuted your nonhistorical fantasies a number of times, gunga. You, of course, never paid attention. If you actually look at the timeline, Fannie and Freddie were barred by government lending standards which regulated what they could buy four or five years into the process which the PRIVATE financial industry was creating. It was the PRIVATE financial services industry which created the risky and opaque financial instruments like mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps. It was the PRIVATE financial industry which in a feeding frenzy started selling subprime mortgages to people they kKNEW were in no position to buy them, because they could then slice and dice the mortgages up into derivatives, which they marketed as very low risk, which they were not, to other PRIVATE buyers, ho then assumed the risk, while the original sellers took huge bonuses based on the dollar volume of the crap they sold. It was the PRIVATE financial industry which talked its shills, largely Republican, in Congress and regulatory agencies into lowering capital requirements and increasing the amount of leverage they could use, which let them run up huge debt
, which couldn't be repaid and toppled the market like dominos.
PRIVATE stockholders in Fannie and Freddie saw this going on for years in the PRIVATE market selling to PRIVATE investors. They saw FAnnie and Freddie's shares of the market falling from close to half to about a fifth, while the PRIVATE market was selling all that to PRIVATE investors. Only late in the game, when the market was already awash with bad financial instruments and as it turned out bad debt, did Fannie and Freddie get their reins loosened. They were always minor players in it. Frank advocated affordable and equitable rates for people closed out of the market. He wasn't the one pushing the predatory subprime markets. That was PRIVATE. Remember WaMu? Of course you don't. That was PRIVATE, and typical.
And the economy tanked before Obama was even elected. If you look at the statistics, they were all going down before he got into office. They've all been going up since. If he'd been able to do as much as he wanted to do but was totally opposed by Republicans--he was lucky to get as much stimulus funding as he did because of the obstructionists--we'd be a lot farther along now.
It was the private sector that crippled the economy, not government, not Fannie, not Freddie, not Obama, not Frank. Try to think behond the right wing's fantasy memes, gunga.
0 Replies
MontereyJack
2
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 06:00 pm
oh, hell, I seem to have stumbled on a foolproof way to doublepost in spite of the safeguards. Sorry about that.
0 Replies
MontereyJack
2
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 06:01 pm
migod, a new personal record, triple posting. Sorrier.
0 Replies
MontereyJack
3
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 10:19 pm
You're the one in fantasy land David, always have been. Your vision of an armed society is a dystopia starting to happen, and you just don't realize it.
There was one and only one dictionary in the 18th century that was regarded, then and now, as being reliable and fairly comprehensive in any sort of modern sense. That was Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (first several editions in the 1760s).Johnson is in fact regarded as the ancestor of the modern dictionary. I've looked at a couple of the earlier ones and they're pretty woeful, which is what I said. One doesn't even have an entry for arms. Another talks extensively about arms in heraldry (as in a coat of arms--if you want to keep and bear heraldic arms as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, I'll support you in that) and that's pretty much it.
As Johnson was regarded by his contemporaries as head, shoulders, and torso above anything anyone else produced, and as he in fact defines "arms", this is his entire definition:
1. Weapons of offence or armour of defence. Pop.
2. A state of hostility. Shakespear
3. War in general. Dryden
4. Action: the act of taking arms. Milton.
5. The ensigns armorial of a family.
You will note these all pertain to martial matters (with of course the exception of 5, which is again heraldry and irrelevant to the 2nd amendment)
No mention of hunting, or individual use for self-defense ("armour of defence" refers to armor, the ironmongery you wear around your body to protect you when in combat, which back then counted as "arms". That's the only occurrence of defense). Nothing about self-defense. "Arms" referred to MILITARY matters when it was used then.
For comparison, here's the Oxford Universal English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford University Press, 1937, now regarded as the standard of dictionaries. Before the revisionists started creating their own non-historical fantasies about terms
Arms 1., pl. Things used in fighting....2.Instruments of offense used in war; weapons
Stand of arms: a complete set for one soldier
Man of arms, later man-at-arms: one practiced in war; a fully-armed knight.
and finally (emphasis theirs): To bear arms:To serve as a soldier.
Now that's the historic usage of the term, as defined by the experts in the English language, based on historical references. Which is consistent with Johnson's contemporaneous definition of the term from the constititutional period. Arms and bearing arms referred to military contexts, not to hunting or personal use. Which is why the second amendment means what it clearly says it means. It's talking about militias and arms for militias, and that's it. It's NOT talking about personal use of guns for self-defense. It's NOT talking about guns for hunting. It's silent about any supposed rights for those uses.
Scalia himself says he's not an original intentionist. He says hemakes his decisions on what the text says. But he's interpolating his interpretation of what the text means. If he were right, the second amendment would be complete with just the second clause. There would be no reason to include the fist clause. But the second amendment did not spring fully formed from some founding father's brow. It was written and rewritten a number of times, and it ALWAYS included the first clause. If it were just introductory and not definitional of what the entire amendment means, it's just fluff. But it was ALWAYS there, so it's important to the meaning of the whole. Scalia is the person who's bending alleged textualism to fit his ideological perspective.
It took them sixty years to realize that they'd really screwed the pooch with Plessy v. Ferguson. As Heller continues to throw civil society in the crapper, hopefully they'll reallize their mistake with it sooner.
You want professional grammarians' amicus briefs that show Scalia is full of it? Here ya go (this isn't the actual brief they filed, obviously, it's a recap of their argument that they wrote for a general audience).
Yes, David, I think I, and the four dissenters in Heller, and the professional grammarians who parsed the second amendment and used documentary sources from the 1700s (before there really were dictionaries to any great extent) to show it applied to militia use, not individual, have a better grasp of the meaning and extent of the amendment, than Scalia or you do.
First, in interpreting the law, you'd be better off consulting a professional lawyer than a professional grammarian.
And second, yes, the Second Amendment covers the militia. I said so myself in my recent post that you just claimed was wrong (make up your mind).
Specifically, the Second Amendment requires the government to always have a militia, and it protects the right of militiamen to own advanced military weapons and to keep them in their homes.
The problem with you and the four dissenters in Heller is, you apparently think it is OK to violate the Constitution, since you've voiced no complaints about the government not having a proper armed militia as the Second Amendment demands.
That said, the fact that the Second Amendment deals with the militia does not change the reality that the Constitution also protects the right of regular civilians to carry guns when they go about in public. Cast your gaze on the Ninth Amendment for a moment.
0 Replies
oralloy
-1
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 11:43 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Vote the goddamned obstructionists in Congress out, put Democrats in their place, and we can control the sharks on Wall St. that trashed the economy
You've missed the fact that Wall Street owns Obama?
MontereyJack wrote:
Maybe we can finally do what the obstructionists blocked Obamacare from doing as it was conceived: create a single-payer healthcare system
"Obamacare" was never conceived as a single payer system.
MontereyJack wrote:
a single-payer healthcare system, which like those in the rest of the developed world, will cost half as much per capita as our current system does, will increase American longevity, will cover everybody, and will do away with recissions, lifetime insuramce caps from private insurance companies, and cover prior conditions.
Much of the developed world does not use a single payer system to achieve that.
0 Replies
oralloy
0
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 11:47 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
The right started the namecalling.
No, no, no. Once again, the egg came before the chicken.
You can't get a chicken without a egg for it to hatch from.
Everyone can see that.
0 Replies
MontereyJack
2
Reply
Mon 3 Sep, 2012 11:53 pm
A. It was david who introduced the grammarian motif some time ago, and keeps bringing it up. He's wrong about the grammarians'views. It is in fact relevant, because language changes, and words can change meanings. If you believe in original intent, as the conservatives say they do, and if you base your decisions on what you think the original intent was,and if what you think is original intent is not in fact what the people who wrote the original meant, because the language has changed, as it has, then what the words meant in 1792 is actually probably more relevant than lawyers, whose view of what truty is is extraordinarily pliable, depending on who their client is.
B> I'm not aware of having reacted to your peculiar views of the 2nd amendment recently.
C. The Constitution doesn't require a militia. It says a well0regulated militia is necessary, but it's not now, and hasn't been necessary in any sense the Founding Fathers would recognize for about a century and a half, since we hit the era of modern and mechanized warfare. Besides, we have a militia. Law defines the National Guard as it. Needs have changed, organizations have changed.
D. This is just another case where the Consitution is beginning to show its age, kinda like counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, or saying Senators should be elected by state legislatures. If we';re really going to go by original intention of some subset of the Founding Fathers, then maybe we should go with Jefferson and the Jeffersonians, who thought they should just discard the old constitution every 25 or 30 years and write a new one. We're something like seven consitutions overdue now.
You can't get a chicken without a egg for it to hatch from.
Then apparently gunga was an egg some six or seven years ago H20Man was in the same clutch.
0 Replies
MontereyJack
2
Reply
Tue 4 Sep, 2012 12:06 am
Oralloy says:
Quote:
You've missed the fact that Wall Street owns Obama?
Actually it doesn't. Wall Street jointly exercises co-supervisory control over the Republican Party in alliance with Grover Norquist. Exept for James Inhofe. He's a wholly-owned syubsidiary of the oil industry. The Dems have somewhat more independence, and they'd damned well better exercise that soon, before Jamie Dimon and his inept ilk trash us again.
Yes, Obamacare originally was a beginner version of a single-payer system, with a government-run option for a Medicare-like system available to anyone of any age as an alternative to private insurance companies. That mutated into an individual mandate, originally a system from the very-conservative Heritage Foundation, in an attempt to get Republicans to support the needed reforms. Of course they stonewalled.
And, yes, the developed world does all use single-payer systems. There is a multiplicity of ways those systems are implemented, each country does it differently, but that's what they are, and they all do it cheaper and better than our current disfunctional health system, and they cover everyone. Really. I'm not making that up. Do a little research. Compare health costs and expenditures. Compare public health stats. We lose.
You're the one in fantasy land David, always have been. Your vision of an armed society is a dystopia starting to happen, and you just don't realize it.
No. Freedom is good, not bad.
MontereyJack wrote:
As Johnson was regarded by his contemporaries as head, shoulders, and torso above anything anyone else produced, and as he in fact defines "arms", this is his entire definition:
1. Weapons of offence or armour of defence. Pop.
2. A state of hostility. Shakespear
3. War in general. Dryden
4. Action: the act of taking arms. Milton.
5. The ensigns armorial of a family.
You will note these all pertain to martial matters (with of course the exception of 5, which is again heraldry and irrelevant to the 2nd amendment)
Self defense is a martial matter.
MontereyJack wrote:
"Arms" referred to MILITARY matters when it was used then.
No, arms were also used in self defense.
MontereyJack wrote:
For comparison, here's the Oxford Universal English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford University Press, 1937, now regarded as the standard of dictionaries. Before the revisionists started creating their own non-historical fantasies about terms
Arms 1., pl. Things used in fighting....2.Instruments of offense used in war; weapons
Stand of arms: a complete set for one soldier
Man of arms, later man-at-arms: one practiced in war; a fully-armed knight.
and finally (emphasis theirs): To bear arms:To serve as a soldier.
Now that's the historic usage of the term, as defined by the experts in the English language, based on historical references. Which is consistent with Johnson's contemporaneous definition of the term from the constititutional period.
Self defense falls under "fighting".
MontereyJack wrote:
Arms and bearing arms referred to military contexts, not to hunting or personal use.
No. People also used arms for self defense.
MontereyJack wrote:
Which is why the second amendment means what it clearly says it means. It's talking about militias and arms for militias, and that's it.
Specifically, it says that the government is required to have a militia, and militiamen have the right to own advanced military weaponry, and the right to keep it in their own homes.
Since you are so gung ho on defending that meaning, how come you never have any complaints over the government violating it???
MontereyJack wrote:
It's NOT talking about personal use of guns for self-defense. It's NOT talking about guns for hunting. It's silent about any supposed rights for those uses.
Yes, but the Ninth Amendment.... not so silent.
MontereyJack wrote:
It took them sixty years to realize that they'd really screwed the pooch with Plessy v. Ferguson. As Heller continues to throw civil society in the crapper, hopefully they'll reallize their mistake with it sooner.
Heller is hardly harming society. We're only a couple years away from the Supreme Court ruling that all the big cities in the US have to let people carry guns when they go about in public (oral arguments before the appeals court are this fall). Once that happens, everyone will truly be free.
You want professional grammarians' amicus briefs that show Scalia is full of it? Here ya go (this isn't the actual brief they filed, obviously, it's a recap of their argument that they wrote for a general audience).
Oralloy, you're attempting to impose your own definition on how words were actually used for centuries, and you're flat wrong. Hunting is not martial. Self-defense is not martial when it's individual. The words were never used that way. They were talking about armies and uniforms and massed volleys and charging at the enemy and amred conflicts between governmental units. And that's very different from someone going out and shooting a rabbit. Sorry, you're wrong.
