THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Izzy is truth.

If I did not have residual misgivings about blasphemy, I would say that Izzy is the way, the truth and the light.

@contrex,

Compared to Max I am, but that's not saying much.

(Btw, he's now sending unsolicited pms in a rather sorry attempt to wind people up.)

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I love you Izzy. You know that.

0 Replies

More lies, you really can't tell the truth.. Does anybody ever fall for that passive aggressive bollocks?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

No Izzy, I really appreciate you because you are a great foil.

You are so sure that your beliefs are righteous that you go such extents to keep them from being questioned. And when you can't respond using logic or reason, you attack people's character and try to silence them.

I am collecting Izzy points. Every time I make a argument based on facts and reason (as I see it) and you respond with an ad hominem, I get a point.

You validate me Izzy.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Now you're lying to yourself.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--bcoTuxRu--/twfrymuyvsmgiwr9acnm.png

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Come now, give Max a hug!

Without you so Able2know would be so much more boring. And if you wern't having fun at this, you would be foolish to keep doing it.

You complete me, Izzy.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
That is incorrect. That post quotes a number of court rulings which enforce the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights.

The funny thing about that statement is none of the quotes you listed cite the English Bill of Rights.

Was there any need for the courts to cite it? It was the only time in human history that a government created a right to keep and bear arms. When, immediately after the creation of the right, courts suddenly started ensuring that people were allowed to keep their guns, no one was confused about which right was being enforced.

parados wrote:

Lack of evidence on your part doesn't make your argument true.

Lack of evidence isn't a problem if it relates to an issue that everyone already understands to be true.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

When you cite the English Bill of Rights as your source how can the exact words in that document not be relevant?

Because if the right was narrowly tailored in its initial ruling, it is very clear from the rulings enforcing the right, that the right grew rapidly and was no longer narrowly tailored by the time the courts started enforcing it.

parados wrote:

These are the EXACT words in the document.

Quote:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Those words are not relevant?

I don't perceive any relevance.

parados wrote:

How can you claim it is a universal right that has no restrictions based on those words?

I'm not. I'm basing my claim on the words of the courts that enforced the right.

parados wrote:

One only has to read the exact words in the document to know you are are proposing something that didn't exist.

One only has to read the exact words of the courts that enforced the right to know that the right did exist.

parados wrote:

Let's examine the relevance.

You claimed:

Quote:
The right was created in 1689.

Rex v Dewhurst wasn't until 1820. So clearly you are arguing that the right exists because of the English Bill of Rights.

You also said this:

Quote:
Rights that were made in 1689 were transmitted to us.

Those are indeed my words.

All my facts seem to be in order.

parados wrote:

Arguing that the words in 1689 meant what you claim was ruled on in 1820 is nonsense. It is nonsense on 2 counts. First, words change meaning over time and rights change with court rulings.

It is possible to learn what a word meant in the time that it was spoken/written.

Yes. Rights can indeed change with court rulings. That is the very reason why I don't perceive any relevance to the possibility that the right was initially narrowly tailored. If that was the case, it is very clear that the right quickly grew and became broader in scope by the time the courts started ruling on it.

parados wrote:

You don't get to interpret the words of 1689 with an 1820 mindset.

Why not? It showed how the courts viewed the right at the time.

parados wrote:

Secondly, you haven't shown that Dewhurst actually ruled what you are claiming.

The ruling is quoted here (bottom of the first column and top of the second):
https://books.google.com/books?id=WEgyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PT316&lpg=PT316

As a bonus, it looks like the 1820 Dewhurst ruling clearly states that it is interpreting the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights.

I don't see how there was ever any doubt, but since you were worried about courts expressly citing the English Bill of Rights, here you go.

parados wrote:

You seem to guilty of wishful thinking that no one will actually look at the words and you can simply apply meanings that clearly aren't there or are in fact antithetical to the actual words.

I think the meaning of the words is pretty straightforward.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Wow.
You seem to want to completely ignore the part of your statement that states the right was created in the Bill of Rights.

My statement contained information that this was when the right was created. That information having been stated, is there any need for me to revisit my statement?

parados wrote:

The same thing you then said wasn't relevant.

I am questioning the relevance of something else: Your claim that the right was narrowly tailored when it was created.

I am not stating that your claim isn't relevant. I certainly can perceive no relevance, but I am open to the possibility that there is some relevance that I do not yet perceive.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I do not perceive any relevance to the claim that the right was created narrowly.

Because you want to completely ignore the exact text in the English Bill of Rights. It only give certain rights to protestants and only weapons allowed under law.

If it isn't relevant, what is the purpose of paying attention to it?

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Rex v Dewhurst was a case of a court using the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights as part of their ruling.

Too bad you haven't quoted any part of the ruling that cites the English Bill of Rights as part of the ruling that grants gun ownership to everyone without restriction.

Why is that too bad? Is there any confusion over which right the courts were referring to?

At any rate, see the link in my previous post. Rex v Dewhurst does expressly state that it is interpreting the English Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

You're both referring to the same right, aren't you?

I'm confident that I can establish that I did not address Parados' point until after he repeated it and complained of me ignoring it. But I'm beginning to question what I would achieve by doing so, other than distracting the discussion from more relevant points.

Is there any relevance to the question of who was the first person in the thread to raise the issue?

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It may or may not have been narrowly tailored, but I strongly dispute that it was limited to the extent of hardly being a right.

I have no doubt, but then that just means that parados's point is relevant to your position.

High confidence that a claim is incorrect doesn't mean that the claim is relevant.

joefromchicago wrote:

If it weren't, there would be no reason for you to dispute it, strongly or otherwise.

I suppose there wasn't a reason. But since the claim was so clearly wrong, I just said so. To claim that it was so narrow as to not even qualify as a right would require altering what was written in the English Bill of Rights.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I believe that, if Parados' claim is 100% correct, it will not damage my argument even slightly.

Why not? If the EBR didn't create a genuine right to bear arms, then what's left of your argument that the EBR did create such a right?

I do not interpret Parados' claim as saying it was not a genuine right when it was created. I interpret him as saying that the right was narrowly tailored when it was created (more narrowly tailored than the court rulings that subsequently enforced the right).

joefromchicago wrote:

I need go no further than your own words. Your "strong dispute" of its truth proves its relevance.

A claim can be both factually untrue and not relevant.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
"Concern to maintain archery went right to the top of English society and dated back to at least 1363, when the first of a succession of ordinances and parliamentary statutes had commanded that Englishmen should spend their Sundays and holidays not in pointless amusements such as football, bowls, tennis and dice, but in shooting at the butts.2"

"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders; they promoted it with further statutes ordering every householder to keep bows, not only for himself, but for his servants and children, and commanding every adult and adolescent male to use them.4"

"Under Henry VIII proclamations reinforced the message, repeatedly commanding local officials to do all in their power to promote archery and suppress the unlawful games that threatened to supplant it.5 In 1528 Henry drove the point home with a reminder that it was archery practice that …"

http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/209/1/53.extract

Did you read your citation? It bans guns for a large part of the population.

Quote:
"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders

Since the statutes BANNED handguns for the lower orders, it would not allow guns to be owned by those people under the law.

At the time, guns were not advanced enough to surpass the longbow. These laws were banning novelty weapons in order to force the masses to use regular military weapons.

Things changed once guns became the normal military weapon.

The statute clearly banned guns for the lower classes. Many statutes did that.

The statute banned guns for the lower classes in an era when guns were viewed by the British government as a novelty weapon.

The weapon from the era of Henry VIII that most closely matches the guns of later centuries is the English longbow. And those statutes most certainly didn't prevent the lower classes from having English longbows.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
You're both referring to the same right, aren't you?

I'm confident that I can establish that I did not address Parados' point until after he repeated it and complained of me ignoring it. But I'm beginning to question what I would achieve by doing so, other than distracting the discussion from more relevant points.

Is there any relevance to the question of who was the first person in the thread to raise the issue?

You've consistently insisted that people here address the points that you raise in your posts. You shouldn't be surprised, then, that I insist on the same thing. Re-read your response above and ask yourself whether you addressed the question that I actually posed. If you conclude that you didn't, then you should take the opportunity to answer it. On the other hand, if you think you did, then we have nothing left to discuss, as I have no interest in maintaining parallel monologues with anyone.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The ruling is quoted here (bottom of the first column and top of the second):
https://books.google.com/books?id=WEgyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PT316&lpg=PT316

As a bonus, it looks like the 1820 Dewhurst ruling clearly states that it is interpreting the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights.

I don't see how there was ever any doubt, but since you were worried about courts expressly citing the English Bill of Rights, here you go.

As, I said. You take things out of context and claim things they are not. You are not citing a ruling. What you have linked to is a transcript of the court case. Dewhurst and 5 of his fellows were found guilty by the jury. (page 604)The arms they were carrying were for the most part pikes. The specific part of the case appears to be jury instructions by the judge. Clearly the judge isn't stating that they have rights to carry a gun. He is quoting Blackstone that they have the rights to have arms based on their station and as allowed by law. In this case they had arms as NOT allowed by law since they were convicted.

But that leads us to where the actual argument about arms comes from which is Blackstone's Analysis of the Laws of England.

Blackstone lists 3 absolute rights and several relative rights.
Arming oneself is not an absolute right. It is a conditional right under British law at the time.
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2140/Blackstone_1387-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf
Page 106

The note references the fact that the US Constitution eliminated the conditional aspect found in British law.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

You've consistently insisted that people here address the points that you raise in your posts.

I'll admit that reasoned opposition to my points is desirable because, when my points withstand that reasoned opposition, it becomes more clear that my points are correct.

But I'm not trying to force anyone to address my points.

joefromchicago wrote:

You shouldn't be surprised, then, that I insist on the same thing. Re-read your response above and ask yourself whether you addressed the question that I actually posed. If you conclude that you didn't, then you should take the opportunity to answer it. On the other hand, if you think you did, then we have nothing left to discuss, as I have no interest in maintaining parallel monologues with anyone.

Is there any doubt over whether I think I addressed your questions? I gave express reasons for why I skipped them.

But since you've made it clear that you really wish to discuss this, I'll address your unanswered questions:

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
"My referral to the creation of the right" and "Parados' claim that the right was created narrowly" are not the same thing.

You're both referring to the same right, aren't you?

Yes. "My claim that the right was created in 1689" and "Parados' claim that the right was created narrowly" do refer to the same right.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I did indeed refer to the creation of the right. But I didn't address Parados' claim that it was narrowly tailored until he repeated it and complained of me ignoring it, at which time I questioned how that was relevant.

So what?

So your claim that this isn't true, was incorrect.

joefromchicago wrote:

You said that the EBR created the right to bear arms, and parados said that the right you referred to was narrow (to the point of being illusory). So you're both talking about the same thing, you just interpret it differently. Isn't that correct?

I did not take his claim as saying that it was narrow to the point of being illusory. I took his claim as saying that it was narrow.

I am unsure if he and I interpret the text of the English Bill of Rights with a significant difference. I've seen what look like small errors in his interpretation, but nothing that really mattered. If I had nitpicked, it would have just distracted from the main point.

It is true that Parados and I are referring to the same right.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I honestly cannot perceive any relevance to the claim that the right was created narrowly.

So if someone says that your position is wrong, that's not relevant to your position?

"Someone saying that my position is wrong" and "someone using an irrelevant point as justification for saying that my position is wrong" are not the same thing.

If someone says that my position is wrong, I should scrutinize their claim to see if there is any merit to it.

If, upon scrutinizing their claim, I cannot perceive any possible relevance to the point that they use to back their claim, I should ask how their point is relevant.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

As, I said. You take things out of context and claim things they are not.

I doubt that it will be established that I took anything out of context or claimed anything that isn't true.

parados wrote:

You are not citing a ruling. What you have linked to is a transcript of the court case. Dewhurst and 5 of his fellows were found guilty by the jury. (page 604)The arms they were carrying were for the most part pikes. The specific part of the case appears to be jury instructions by the judge.

Being jury instructions doesn't make the judge's words any less valid.

parados wrote:

Clearly the judge isn't stating that they have rights to carry a gun.

The judge stated that people have the right to carry guns when they are going singly or in a small party on the road for the purposes of traveling or business.

parados wrote:

He is quoting Blackstone that they have the rights to have arms based on their station and as allowed by law.

Blackstone was referring to the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights.

parados wrote:

In this case they had arms as NOT allowed by law since they were convicted.

Their case still makes a convenient cite demonstrating that we have the right to carry guns when we go about in public.

parados wrote:

But that leads us to where the actual argument about arms comes from which is Blackstone's Analysis of the Laws of England.

Blackstone lists 3 absolute rights and several relative rights.
Arming oneself is not an absolute right. It is a conditional right under British law at the time.
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2140/Blackstone_1387-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf
Page 106

The note references the fact that the US Constitution eliminated the conditional aspect found in British law.

Does this mean that you agree that the right was created in England and came to the US via English Common Law?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Have most of you noticed that Ollay does his damdest to baffle one with bull shyt?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Being jury instructions doesn't make the judge's words any less valid.

Being jury instructions makes it not be a ruling.

Quote:

The judge stated that people have the right to carry guns when they are going singly or in a small party on the road for the purposes of traveling or business.

No. He didn't say that. You are once again ignoring the exact words and the context and applying your own meaning.

Quote:

Their case still makes a convenient cite demonstrating that we have the right to carry guns when we go about in public.

No. It doesn't since the case dealt mainly with pikes.

Quote:

Does this mean that you agree that the right was created in England and came to the US via English Common Law?

No. It means England had a limited right and the US changed it. You are claiming England had the same right as the US.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Being jury instructions makes it not be a ruling.

That doesn't make the judge's words any less valid.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The judge stated that people have the right to carry guns when they are going singly or in a small party on the road for the purposes of traveling or business.

No. He didn't say that. You are once again ignoring the exact words

Here are the judge's exact words (quoted directly from my sig line):
A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is traveling or going for the ordinary purposes of business.

parados wrote:

and the context and applying your own meaning.

I have not ignored any context. Nor have I applied any meaning other than the meaning clearly expressed by the judge.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Their case still makes a convenient cite demonstrating that we have the right to carry guns when we go about in public.

No. It doesn't since the case dealt mainly with pikes.

The right to keep and bear arms is hardly limited to pikes. Guns very much count as arms.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Does this mean that you agree that the right was created in England and came to the US via English Common Law?

No. It means England had a limited right and the US changed it. You are claiming England had the same right as the US.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the US did change the right, that would still mean we had to receive it from the British first.

It would be pretty hard for us to change the right if we had never received it to begin with.

1 Reply

"The lie that is liberal was a stout-hearted lie, who grew up in a family of conservative lies, in a small cottage, in the village of lies. He always knew he had some special purpose..."

0 Replies

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know