confessions of a bigot

[David Floyd]

Actually the Supreme Court has never ruled on a 9th Amendment argument for the right to bear arms, especially since things such as substantive due process are relatively new.

If liberals get to have abortion and privacy under the 9th, then conservatives should get guns under the same arguments

And besides, just because the Court has ruled against an unfettered right to bear arms doesn't make them any more right than they were in Dred Scot.

[Asher]

threadjacking shur iz fun!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
This is where I got the actual court cases.

Most of those cases appear to have come before the time that the Court decided to bastardize the 14th Ammendment and nationalize the Bill of Rights. The one case that appears to be on point, United States v. Warin, says nothing about the private ownership of guns considering what was meant by the word militia at the time of the 2nd Ammendment's ratification.

[Guynemer]

Give me the thread or the bunny gets it, right between the eyes! (Just wondering what a real-life threadjacker might say to start a threadjack.)

Anyway, let's stop with the guns vs. antiguns debate. Can't you see this is just separating us from our real purpose? Namely, showing Kaak what a first-class mental hairball he's being.

[David Floyd]

In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!

No ****. Given the 10th Amendment they could always do this.

Even so, this left a question about how much the federal government can limit a citizen's right to own a gun. In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States vs. Miller. Here, the Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting the interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.

From the same Court that FDR corrupted by threatening to pack - after that point, the Supreme Court was really not an independent entity and I'd hate to rely on a case from such a tainted Court.

In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."

In 1972 Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment....There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police."

These are both liberal courts, liberal justices, and would have probably been decided differently under either the Burger or Rehnquist courts, not to mention early ones, such as John Marshall. Granted, this is still case law, it just makes it incorrect case law, similar to Dred Scot, and I'm fairly confident it'll be overturned, especially considering the Justices GW Bush will likely appoint.

And again, the Court has never - IIRC - heard a gun-related case where the 9th Amendment was argued, in an environment in which we have decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut.

[Ramo]

Only the state governments have the right to a well-regulated militia under government control.

That's a completely erroneous legal argument.

First of all, the meaning of "regulated" has changed these past centuries. It actually meant "disciplined." You should also note that a militia implies non-regular troops, and citizen, not state, ownership of arms. During the War for American Independence, there were even private militias. Furthermore, while it's true that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to state gov't's, that doesn't mean that the federal gov't can pass legislation infringing on the right to bear arms of individuals; that is, the federal gov't has no authority to implement gun control legislation.

the Court decided to bastardize the 14th Ammendment and nationalize the Bill of Rights

Bastardization? The nationalization of the Bill of Rights (which more or less excluded the 2nd Amendment, BTW), which was not only what the Amendment was designed accomplish, followed from Section 1.

[David Floyd]

I'll refrain from restarting the validity of the 14th Amendment debate, not least of which because it would hurt my argument in this case

[Kaak]

Namely, showing Kaak what a first-class mental hairball he's being.

Well you are going to have to do a better job than you have been so far. I am the only one arguing against 10 or 15, yet you do not adequately address my concerns and whine when I forget to address one of yours...sad, so sad.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
The nationalization of the Bill of Rights (which more or less excluded the 2nd Amendment, BTW), which was not only what the Amendment was designed accomplish,

Excepting the obvious case of the 5th ammendment, I fail to see how this statement follows from the text of the 14th ammendment.

followed from Section 1.

Explain?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Kaak


i didn't actually link them, i just consider them related in the fact that the person who is turned on by child pornos has no more choice as to what flips his lid than does a gay person. One sickens me, so does the other.

And you could also make that comparison with with heterosexuals, ie "one who is turned on by child pornos has no more choice as to what flips his lid than does a heterosexual person"

What really sickens me is your logical inconsitency and your wallowing in self-righteous bigotry.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kaak
Well you are going to have to do a better job than you have been so far. I am the only one arguing against 10 or 15, yet you do not adequately address my concerns and whine when I forget to address one of yours...sad, so sad.

Your concerns were addressed over and over and over and over and you still do not understand.

Come back in ten years when you've grown up and have been exposed to the real world and we'll see if you're still a bigot.

[Ramo]

Explain?

The 14th Amendment was primarily instated to decrease the authority of the Southern states.

Anyways, the due process clause covers it. Violating the other individual liberties in the BoR undermines federal standards for due process, IMO.

I'll refrain from restarting the validity of the 14th Amendment debate, not least of which because it would hurt my argument in this case

You better!

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Assur


And why do you link paedophilia to child abuse?
That's just as sick as linking homophilia to gay rape

Not all paedophiles are rapists you know

Is this a joke, comrade? If so it´s a bad one...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Is this a joke, comrade? If so it´s a bad one...

He's saying not all paedophiles have sex with children, or molest them, or touch them, etc.
There are many more paedophiles that are aroused by naked children, but don't act on them. That's still wrong by almost all accounts, but allegedly they can't help they way they feel. I wouldn't know one way or the other, but as long as they don't hurt any children I don't think they should be lynched.

Not all paedophiles are child abusers and rapists.

[Logical Realist]

Homophobes and hypocrites

Sirotnikov:

I have a certain fetish. Some people may think it's wierd and dislike me. I accept that. Some people will think it's too wierd. Ok. It's their right. As long as they don't treat me less than a human being, I accept their right to dislike me.

Yes, they are allowed to criticize gays all they want up to the point of harassment. But that doesn't mean we can't criticize or dislike them for that. I also have a right to dislike Kaak's homophobia as much as Kaak has a right to dislike homosexuals. Kaak should realize this when he posts...

also aren't yu being a bit hypocritical? ('') You are saying that those criticizing Kaak are being harsh,intolerant of Kaak's dislikes and yet you got very critical on me when I seemed to be criticizing your precious theism and saying I don't like Christians as a group.


I believe you put it like this:

one can't judge a person's criterias for hate, I think.

Well if you can't judge hates how much more so can you judge dislikes?

In which case, how come you are so willing to criticize my dislikes? Because they include you in a partial way most likely. See how different it is when you feel targeted?

But if he'll limit himself to disliking them and won't discriminate - who cares?

Such dislike,epecially when one is so vocal about it inspires discrimination. Also anyone gay cares as Kaak said they were "disgusting". I imagine had someone said Jews were "disgusting" you would care. As do I, because such bigotry has negative consequences and is baseless. I despise all irrational dislikes based on superstition, as well as such strong dislikes over something as petty and private as a person's sex life.

Again though to use your own standards against you...If I limit myself to disliking religion and do not descriminate against the religious, who cares? You seem to.

Now you contradict yourself.

If he doesn't care, he wouldn't like his voice to be heard since he wouldn't have cared.

You totally took that out of context. DM was saying that Kaak doesn't care about other's statements, in that, he's not open minded about nor giving them a fair hearing nor willing to change.

All Kaak is interested in is expressing hatred and trying to spread/justify it in a half-baked manner. In other words, he cares about shouting his views from the top of the roof, but when anyone else diagrees, he doesn't care to listen.

Who cares?
there are many people who are indifferent to gay people

Yes, but it akes very few bigots to turn a gays life into a nightmare. Especially if those more rational and tolerant elements of soceity aren't willing to counter their influence.

Overall,lady, you strike me as very hypocritical. When it comes to Kaak shouting about how he dislikes gays...that's fine. Even if his reasoning is flawed. When it comes to me disliking something that YOU hold dear...you get very offended and sound off. Even if I present good reasons. You practice double standards. Like a child, you think its OK to harm others all you want, or for someone else to, but if someone offends you in anyway...now they are bad people. You're a joke.