07-18-2008, 04:57 PM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose." "In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." If you can read, Waters, you'll see how wrong you've been. The decision provides a building block for striking down the new DC law, but it doesn't by its terms foreclose it in any way. The Supreme Court's decision is incredibly liimited: Second Amendment is individual right; can't ban handgun ownership in the home; and have to allow handgun to be "operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." I win; you lose. Now put on your floaties and please leave the deep end.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 |
|
07-18-2008, 04:59 PM | #92 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
Quote:
You are intellectually dishonest. You make UtahDan seem like a paragon of ethics. |
|
07-18-2008, 05:02 PM | #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
You're the intellectually dishonest one who refuses to do his homework and instead hides his sloppy thinking behind who knows what, but it aint' reason.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 |
|
07-18-2008, 05:05 PM | #94 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
"immediate self-defense".
Think about it again. You seemed to have missed it the first time. |
07-18-2008, 05:07 PM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
Surely you can't be this obstinately blind.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 |
|
07-18-2008, 05:11 PM | #96 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
Quote:
You remind me of the kid who has to say the sacrament prayer four times. |
|
07-18-2008, 05:13 PM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
What's the difference between "immediate self-defense" and "threat of immediate harm." I look forward to your explanation how the latter is more strict than the former. Thanks in advance, you obstinate fool. It's great fun kicking your ass when you ask for a cite, I give it to you, you can't stand that you're wrong, and you suddently build a cement block on your brain and start being a broken record.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 |
|
07-18-2008, 05:17 PM | #98 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
It's ludicrous on its face--
can you imagine someone saying "you can only bear a loaded gun when you are justified in using deadly force, otherwise it cannot be loaded." Just like it is ridiculous (and not what the Supreme Court meant) for the police to carry unloaded guns, it is ridiculous that one has the right to defend oneself in one's own home with a gun, but it can't be loaded. |
07-18-2008, 05:23 PM | #99 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
Supreme Court held, you have a right to: (1) own gun in home (2) for "immediate self-defense." New DC gun law: (1) permits gun ownership in the home (2) and keep it loaded for "threats of immediate harm." You can try to engage with the actual arguments if you want, but until then, I'll just be grateful you're not my lawyer. The closest you've come is by saying that in DC you are always in threats of immediate harm. I think the Supreme Court is going to have to back away from their "immediate self-defense" and gun ownership only for "confrontation" rationale in order to strike down some laws. I suspect they will.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 |
|
07-18-2008, 05:30 PM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|