The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy said:
You must be kicking yourself for going to law school when you could have been educated by the scholars on here.
Click to expand...

Yeah especially because I'm spending a chunk of my day reading The Steel Seizure case...for the third time, and I can't begin to explain to you how mind blowing it is.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm not familiar with those cases. I am familiar with a few cases involving CCW holders illegally carrying and having accidents (such as when they were drinking). But clearly those cases don't apply, since someone who breaks a law about carrying would just break other laws as well if you ratified them, making the argument for gun control useless.
Click to expand...

It was everything from accidental discharge from dropped guns, some with people getting hit, to improper use of force and bystanders getting hit. These are almost certainly outliers, but they were being used as examples to learn from.
 
Schutzstaffel was spelled wong... just sayin' Badenov...... ;)

Hitler would have had a field day with our technology and our sociopolitical state of mental and intellectual decay.
 
Seggy said:
You must be kicking yourself for going to law school when you could have been educated by the scholars on here.
Click to expand...

So, seriously, what is the deal with this?

When you post this, it is as if to say that it takes some sort of intense skill, training, or wisdom to be able to read, comprehend, and understand the Constitution and other related writings (like SCOTUS cases, or the writings of the Framers and other early US statesmen). Furthermore, it implies that by people like myself even speaking of it as if we have some knowledge of the information contained therein, that are showing what immense fools we are, as we can't possibly grasp the ideas and obviously don't.

I'm not claiming to be a Constitutional scholar, but I'm also not in agreement that one must be one in order to intelligently discuss the principles and ideas codified in the founding documents of our country. These documents are not written in some foreign language. This is not the Catholic Church of old, in which mere mortals could not possibly have the wisdom to read and comprehend the Bible and had to take the world of their elders for what it said and what it all meant. It does not take a Juris Doctor to read relevant caselaw and comprehend what those cases say. In fact, I would counter that every US citizen SHOULD spend the time to study and understand the philosophical framework and basis for all of these writings, and that with a basic 12th-grade education they could quite successfully.

I have spent the last 22 years in sworn service to protect and defend the Constitution. It is not an oath I have taken lightly, and it has been in my best interest both as an American citizen and as a military leader to well understand exactly what is in that document. I have given a lot of time and thought to it over that time. The concepts and ideals that are enshrined in it are something I believe in quite deeply and what I do not know about it, I am enthusiastic about learning of.

I'm quite interested to hear the faults in my points if you see them and hear your counterpoints if you have them.

From my perspective, however, it just adds little to the conversation to throw out a sarcastic ad hominem comment as quoted, yet not actually offer a critique of what I've said.
 
Hacker15e said:
So, seriously, what is the deal with this?

When you post this, it is as if to say that it takes some sort of intense skill, training, or wisdom to be able to read, comprehend, and understand the Constitution and other related writings (like SCOTUS cases, or the writings of the Framers and other early US statesmen). Furthermore, it implies that by people like myself even speaking of it as if we have some knowledge of the information contained therein, that are showing what immense fools we are, as we can't possibly grasp the ideas and obviously don't.

I'm not claiming to be a Constitutional scholar, but I'm also not in agreement that one must be one in order to intelligently discuss the principles and ideas codified in the founding documents of our country. These documents are not written in some foreign language. This is not the Catholic Church of old, in which mere mortals could not possibly have the wisdom to read and comprehend the Bible and had to take the world of their elders for what it said and what it all meant. It does not take a Juris Doctor to read relevant caselaw and comprehend what those cases say. In fact, I would counter that every US citizen SHOULD spend the time to study and understand the philosophical framework and basis for all of these writings, and that with a basic 12th-grade education they could quite successfully.

I have spent the last 22 years in sworn service to protect and defend the Constitution. It is not an oath I have taken lightly, and it has been in my best interest both as an American citizen and as a military leader to well understand exactly what is in that document. I have given a lot of time and thought to it over that time. The concepts and ideals that are enshrined in it are something I believe in quite deeply and what I do not know about it, I am enthusiastic about learning of.

I'm quite interested to hear the faults in my points if you see them and hear your counterpoints if you have them.

From my perspective, however, it just adds little to the conversation to throw out a sarcastic ad hominem comment as quoted, yet not actually offer a critique of what I've said.
Click to expand...

The conviction people speak of the Constitution is my 'deal' here. Yes, we have all read it, we all may have read some wikipedia articles on it recently, or go have gone to a website that quotes the Constitution in a favorable way to what you believe. It would be me telling Derg how he needs to vote on his next contract. I have an idea what is being said in the contract, but I really don't know how it will pertain to him now, or down the road. Let him make the decision to be a 'scholar' of his own contract to make an analysis of it. Same concept with most people posting in this thread, unless you have advanced degrees in Constitutional law, you probably know 1% of what you think you know.

There are A LOT of laws in this country that aren't in the Constitution, but whereas the Constitution was used as a framework. I think a lot on here are overlooking that.

Finally, thank you for your service.
 
http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-gun-protection-legislation/

51301080-630x410.jpg




There is civil unrest growing across the country as well, the danger the people present to the government as an armed society is a clear and present danger to WA DC. One could think that this is the first step in a socialist government take over. This could take 50 years to accomplish but look at liberal position now, this started 60 years ago, there is a method to their madness. Rick Perry should follow suit with this legislation.
 
Seggy said:
The conviction people speak of the Constitution is my 'deal' here. Yes, we have all read it, we all may have read some wikipedia articles on it recently, or go have gone to a website that quotes the Constitution in a favorable way to what you believe. It would be me telling Derg how he needs to vote on his next contract. I have an idea what is being said in the contract, but I really don't know how it will pertain to him now, or down the road. Let him make the decision to be a 'scholar' of his own contract to make an analysis of it. Same concept with most people posting in this thread, unless you have advanced degrees in Constitutional law, you probably know 1% of what you think you know.

There are A LOT of laws in this country that aren't in the Constitution, but whereas the Constitution was used as a framework. I think a lot on here are overlooking that.

Finally, thank you for your service.
Click to expand...


Ah yes the "I don't like your position so I'm going to say you need a PhD to have an opinion" stance. Seems to be pretty popular these days.
 
I just happen to be reading the book Killing Kennedy. When I came to the part that discusses Oswald's old 6.5 mm bolt action Carcano rifle, I was struck by the comparison to today's emotion filled rush to ban "assault rifles." Later it was a .22 caliber Iver Johnson Cadet revolver that killed his brother Robert. It is the man, not the hardware, that does the killing. That is a fact conveniently ignored by those who support the administration's actions.

As the NRA said following their meeting with Joe Biden "“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,”
 
pullup said:
Ah yes the "I don't like your position so I'm going to say you need a PhD to have an opinion" stance. Seems to be pretty popular these days.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of times when it's valid to say that a certain qualification is necessary to take a stance. For example, if you're going to dispute what the climate scientists have to say about climate change, then you should have some sort of experience in the field. But when you're just agreeing with what the experts in the field say (i.e., repeating what the SCOTUS said), then clearly no experience is required. You're just deferring to the experts. Seggy, on the other hand, wants to refute what the experts have to say. The SCOTUS has clearly ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, separate and apart from any militia, and is a natural right. Seggy wants to ignore this. He doesn't even respond to posts that mention it. Instead, he just returns to his gun phobic talking points. It's very disappointing. I usually expect better from him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top