I told Ya'll "Constitutional Convention" Coming ?

marshaul · Nov 22, 2008

imported post

I didn't say my understanding was limited to the basic. My intent was to point out that even my "basic" understanding far surpasses those I mentioned. No degree is required to interpret the Constitution. It is written in plain English.

marshaul · Nov 22, 2008

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Constitutional law as it was intended by the founders seems to be the last thing on the mind of our SCOTUS. How else do you explain 4 Justices voting against an individual right to own and carry arms?

Even the majority opinion was a stilted, statist reading with little basis in reality.

While we look at Heller as progress, it in fact took us a giant, possibly irreversible step back. Heller should have invalidated any future AWBs. After all, the revolutionary militia didn't have to deal with inferior weapons. In fact, often they used rifles of a greater quality and accuracy than the weapons of their uniformed counterparts on either side. They had access to military-quality weapons, and the money to afford them, same as any other weapon, so they didn't go into combat with fowlers. Today, the average "militia" member (armed citizen) is perfectly capable of owning a military equivalent arm (I'm thinking of a full auto M-16). However, the second amendment doesn't protect this, because Scalia thinks the second amendment is limited to home defense, and isn't intended to create a functional militia! The militia is supposed to be the backbone of our forces at times of peace; instead we find ourselves disarmed and weak compared to our anti-American, unconstitutional standing armies. This is but the first step towards subjugation, delivered to our jubilant cheers by Antonin Scalia.

"How far we have come."

/rant

rodbender · Nov 22, 2008

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Today, the average "militia" member (armed citizen) is perfectly capable of owning a military equivalent arm (I'm thinking of a full auto M-16). However, the second amendment doesn't protect this, because Scalia thinks the second amendment is limited to home defense, and isn't intended to create a functional militia!

Do you understand that the Chief Justice is the one that decides how narrow a ruling will be? CJ Roberts is very strict and only allows decisions to encompass what the case is about. Heller onlyasked that he be allowed to keep a handgun in his home, and that's all he got. If you read the whole thing, it plainly states that2A applies to "all bearable arms". The rest will have to come later, as cases get decided that apply to the 2A. Heller didn't even decide incorporation under 14A, since it took place in D.C. and D.C. is not a state. That, too, will have to come later.

marshaul · Nov 22, 2008

imported post

Yes, Roberts deserves his own share of the blame. I just didn't happen to pick on him.

Regardless, you're dreaming. The scope was not too narrow; it was too wide. It didn't fail to address military weapons; it declared that the second amendment doesn't protect them.

Allow me to make it entirely clear for you:

The term ['arms'] was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

And then watch them slither into a tortured justification for their stilted reading:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

This ridiculous argument falls flat on its face, when one points out that the reason a full-auto M-16 is any more "highly unusual" than a semi-auto AR-15 is the unconstitutional law prohibiting civilian registration of the M-16 manufactured after 1986. Effectively, it is using circular reasoning to claim, "Well, because we outlawed something some time ago, the prohibition of that something must be constitutional". Furthermore, his "sophisticated" becomes a complete joke when one considers the difference between the AR-15 his decision protects and the M-16 it "cannot" protect is a simple part:

AWDstylez · Nov 22, 2008

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Constitutional law as it was intended by the founders seems to be the last thing on the mind of our SCOTUS.

You base this on what? Aside from being Flintlock from the internet (which I know is uber credentials around here), why should anyone care what you have to say? What authority or understanding do you have above anyone else, let alone one of the justices,to make a statement like that? That fact of that matter is that you're nobody and yet you speak with such authority as to imply that you're somebody. That's a common problem on this board. These people didn't get to where they are on luck and chance. Like I said before, you're the one behind the computer for a reason. I'd think long and hard before you attempt to correct the decisions ofor question the motives ofthose far above you.

marshaul · Nov 22, 2008

imported post

Not only are you a blatant elitist, you give authority credit for its own sake, whereas I do not. Your entire argument is nothing more than an elaborate ipse-dixitism. In the realm of logic (a necessary precursor to the interpretation and application of law), correctness is established through valid argument; preordained "authority" is non-existent and/or irrelevant.

Flintlock · Nov 22, 2008

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

Constitutional law as it was intended by the founders seems to be the last thing on the mind of our SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

You base this on what? Aside from being Flintlock from the internet (which I know is uber credentials around here), why should anyone care what you have to say? What authority or understanding do you have above anyone else, let alone one of the justices,to make a statement like that? That fact of that matter is that you're nobody and yet you speak with such authority as to imply that you're somebody. That's a common problem on this board. These people didn't get to where they are on luck and chance. Like I said before, you're the one behind the computer for a reason. I'd think long and hard before you attempt to correct the decisions ofor question the motives ofthose far above you.

Your hipocrisy knows no bounds...

Opinions are opinions and I never said that yours don't matter. You don't have to care about what I think or say but to make that a point in your return statement is laughable at best. I would still die fighting for your right to think or say the absurd rhetoric that you continually spew.

I am just as much of a somebody as you are. I do disagree with virtually all you vomiton this board, but I am obviously not the only one. You come here to a pro-second amendment board and unleash your Obama (admitted anti-second amendment bigot)apologist rhetoric and expect to leave the conversation without being challenged.

What you are saying is tantamount to nobody on a public discussion forum being able to have a strong opinion. You don't know me from Adam and youdon't know what I know. There are many different types of people that post on forums and I have studied these topics for 25 years. I don't need to, nor should I give you my resume`and I would never ask for yours.

If you can't handle strong opinions or those that disagree with yours, I'dsuggest that you mightsearch for a board where you are not challenged.

Edit: Spelling

AWDstylez · Nov 23, 2008

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

I am just as much of a somebody as you are.

You missed the point. You're entitled to whatever opinion you want. If you want to believe the sky is red and the moon is made of cheese, more power to you, but it doesn't make your opinions any less moronic or baseless. I'm telling you that your opinions need re-examining in the light of who you're disagreeing with and what you're disagreeing based on (your own opinion and nothing more because you have no expertise). This thread and the other tax thread are shining examples of people that know nothing, running their mouths like they know something. I LOVE hearing people rant about taxes and the economy because 99.9% of them don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. It entertains me.

Doug Huffman · Nov 23, 2008

imported post

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to syllogistic logic, because the validity of a syllogism is independent of the qualities of the person putting it forward. The converse case is an ad hominem attack: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#cite_note-0[/sup]

Flintlock · Nov 23, 2008

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

I am just as much of a somebody as you are.

Click to expand...

You missed the point. You're entitled to whatever opinion you want. If you want to believe the sky is red and the moon is made of cheese, more power to you, but it doesn't make your opinions any less moronic or baseless. I'm telling you that your opinions need re-examining in the light of who you're disagreeing with and what you're disagreeing based on (your own opinion and nothing more because you have no expertise). This thread and the other tax thread are shining examples of people that know nothing, running their mouths like they know something. I LOVE hearing people rant about taxes and the economy because 99.9% of them don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. It entertains me.

And you do know what you are talking about? What makes that so, because you say so...? 99.9% of the people here don't know what they are talking about...? LOL

This is a serious question... How old are you?

Who made you the forum tax expert, political expert, and expert onany topicyou feel like discussing? I have never read anything quiteas elitist as your last post and you are finally showing your true colors for all to see.

And again, can you prove that me and many others here that you argue with are not "experts" in a chosen field of study? No, you can't.. All of our opinions here are equally valid and although I disagree with you regularly, I support your right to have those thoughts and opinions. I am not sure I could say the same for you..

You resort to personal name calling and call those opinionsthat may disagree with yours, baseless and moronic. Wow, instead of gracing us with your self-appointed wisdom, issuing sound facts, statistics, links, and information,you resort to the very bickering you have previously critisized others for doing.

Your hipocrisy knows no bounds and I will not feed the troll on this thread any longer.

rodbender · Nov 23, 2008

imported post

I KNOW this. A heavy and progressive income tax is one of the 10 pillars of communism and needs to be done away with. As is a central bank (Federal Reserve) and public indoctrination...er..er...I mean education.

Anything that is in the communist manifesto should be done away with, a woodenstake driven through it's heart. History has shown us that there is a better way and we need to distance ourselves from communism as best we can.

Communism, i.e. socialism,does not work. No matter who runs the show.

marshaul · Nov 23, 2008

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to syllogistic logic, because the validity of a syllogism is independent of the qualities of the person putting it forward. The converse case is an ad hominem attack: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#cite_note-0[/sup]

Thanks, Doug, but I already pointed this out to AWD, and he didn't bother to respond.

AWDstylez · Nov 23, 2008

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Thanks, Doug, but I already pointed this out to AWD, and he didn't bother to respond.

Go back to the last page. You're missing the point. We aren't arguing absolutes. We're talking about people that know nothing making arguments based off of the nothing they know and attempting to use those opinion (and nothing more) based arguments to "prove wrong" those that actually have a standing that's based on something. An "appeal to authority" is saying someone is rightmerely because they're an authority and the opposite would be saying someone is wrong merely because they aren't an authority. Doug always misses that all-importantly "merely"qualifier when trying to call people on it so he can sound smart. That's far from what I'm doing. You should go back and read the post that started this and then, if you feel it necessary, return, butwithout your buddy strawman.

AWDstylez:

And I lol at the "fair" tax being developed through citizen study groups... as if the average person has any concept of how a tax will actually effect them.

There's nothing close to an appeal to authority there, just me pointing out the average American as exactly what they are... dumb and uninformed.

I already said it once and I guess I'll have to say it again... I don't understand theoretical physics, it just makes no sense to me, it isn't logical. Yet, I don't sit here and try to tell people that DO understand the subject that they're wrong because I said they're wrong based on what boils down to my own opinion and understanding of "logic."

If you think there's an appeal to authority here then your comprehension is lacking or you're intentionally diverting the argument. It's as simple as people that don't know what they're talking about trying to act like they know what they're talking about. If you don't have knowledge on a particular subject, what you have to say is of little relevance to anyone and when you disagree with someone (or a group of people) that have infinitely more knowledge than you on any given subject, you better have a damn good reason, "I think they're wrong," or, "you're just appealing to authority," simply doesn't cut it. If you knew as much as you thought you knew you'd be sitting on the bench and not behind a keyboard. Opinions are like @#$%s...

marshaul · Nov 23, 2008

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Thanks, Doug, but I already pointed this out to AWD, and he didn't bother to respond.

Click to expand...

Go back to the last page. You're missing the point. We aren't arguing absolutes. We're talking about people that know nothing making arguments based off of the nothing they know and attempting to use those opinion (and nothing more) based arguments to "prove wrong" those that actually have a standing that's based on something. An "appeal to authority" is saying someone is right merely because they're an authority and the opposite would be saying someone is wrong merely because they aren't an authority. Doug always misses that all-importantly "merely" qualifier when trying to call people on it so he can sound smart. That's far from what I'm doing. You should go back and read the post that started this and then, if you feel it necessary, return, but without your buddy strawman.

AWDstylez:

And I lol at the "fair" tax being developed through citizen study groups... as if the average person has any concept of how a tax will actually effect them.

Click to expand...

There's nothing close to an appeal to authority there, just me pointing out the average American as exactly what they are... dumb and uninformed.

I already said it once and I guess I'll have to say it again... I don't understand theoretical physics, it just makes no sense to me, it isn't logical. Yet, I don't sit here and try to tell people that DO understand the subject that they're wrong because I said they're wrong based on what boils down to my own opinion and understanding of "logic."

If you think there's an appeal to authority here then your comprehension is lacking or you're intentionally diverting the argument. It's as simple as people that don't know what they're talking about trying to act like they know what they're talking about. If you don't have knowledge on a particular subject, what you have to say is of little relevance to anyone and when you disagree with someone (or a group of people) that have infinitely more knowledge than you on any given subject, you better have a damn good reason, "I think they're wrong," or, "you're just appealing to authority," simply doesn't cut it. If you knew as much as you thought you knew you'd be sitting on the bench and not behind a keyboard. Opinions are like @#$%s...

Actually, you were ridiculing Americans who use their computers at home to post on the internet criticisms of tax, law, etc. as being universally incapable of understanding simple things. Your posts reeked of a particularly repugnant elitism irrelevant to the otherwise reasonable argument contained here above.

paramedic70002 · Nov 27, 2008

imported post

Um, twisting around a bit, if there were to be a Constitutional Convention, some may endeavor to rewrite the 2A. And some others. For better or worse.

AWDstylez · Nov 27, 2008

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Actually, you were ridiculing Americans who use their computers at home to post on the internet criticisms of tax, law, etc. as being universally incapable of understanding simple things. Your posts reeked of a particularly repugnant elitism irrelevant to the otherwise reasonable argument contained here above.

Negative. I simply said that people that don't have a clue what they're talking about need to keep their mouths shut. "Americans" is a massively sweeping category, the likes of which I never went anywhere near.

marshaul · Nov 27, 2008

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Actually, you were ridiculing Americans who use their computers at home to post on the internet criticisms of tax, law, etc. as being universally incapable of understanding simple things. Your posts reeked of a particularly repugnant elitism irrelevant to the otherwise reasonable argument contained here above.

Click to expand...

Negative. I simply said that people that don't have a clue what they're talking about need to keep their mouths shut. "Americans" is a massively sweeping category, the likes of which I never went anywhere near.

So, as long as you don't criticize anything, AWDstylez might deign to not classify you as a moron. Is that about right?

JBURGII · Nov 27, 2008

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Actually, you were ridiculing Americans who use their computers at home to post on the internet criticisms of tax, law, etc. as being universally incapable of understanding simple things. Your posts reeked of a particularly repugnant elitism irrelevant to the otherwise reasonable argument contained here above.

Click to expand...

Negative. I simply said that people that don't have a clue what they're talking about need to keep their mouths shut. "Americans" is a massively sweeping category, the likes of which I never went anywhere near.

Soooo... because I drive forklifts and don't have any practical experience in or higher education pertaining to advanced economics or politics means I should keep my ignorant butt out of the discussions by my betters? I best keep myself down here just a bein a good little productive fella. If'n I was smarter, I might just know when I been put in my place..

adam40cal · Nov 28, 2008

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

How respectful you are to your philospher-kings. Wonder if it comforts your smart-alec mind that those philosopher-kings regard you as one of those "idiots on the street". Or perhaps you are just too cool to imagine such a thought.

Click to expand...

You get to a point where you realize that there ARE people that know more than you. And you may not agree with those people, but you can bet there's a damn good reason they believe what they do; so maybe it's YOUR position that needs to be re-examined.

"A wise man never knows all, only fools know everything."

Reminds me of many people here that think they know law better than Supreme Court justices. There's a reason why they're making decisions that effect the nation and you're just complaining about it on the internet. Think about that before you speak against them. The same goes for anyone that is clearly more informed and knowledgable than yourself, whether you agree with them or not.

As United States citizens we have a right, and obligation to question all acts of government. I don't care if its the supreme court or the president they work for us not the other way around. So I guess we shouldn't question congress, senate, law enforcement or any other government power because well you know.

Quote:
Reminds me of many people here that think they know law better than Supreme Court justices. There's a reason why they're making decisions that effect the nation and you're just complaining about it on the internet. Think about that before you speak against them.

AWDstylez · Nov 28, 2008

imported post

JBURGII wrote:

Soooo... because I drive forklifts and don't have any practical experience in or higher education pertaining to advanced economics or politics means I should keep my ignorant butt out of the discussions by my betters? I best keep myself down here just a bein a good little productive fella. If'n I was smarter, I might just know when I been put in my place..

I wouldn't go to your work and try to drive a fork lift. If I did I'd probably make myself look like an idiot. If you don't know anything about howthe economy works, don't jump into an economics discussion and spit unfounded opinion everywhere. It'll make you look like an idiot.

Marshaul:

So, as long as you don't criticize anything, AWDstylez might deign to not classify you as a moron. Is that about right?

Still not there. Drop the generalities and strawman stretches and you might have it.

I told Ya'll "Constitutional Convention" Coming ?

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned