New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Fox News poll: 67% of Americans want ban on assault weapons

Bugsy McGurk

President
I always like leftists who argue that the Bill of Rights aren't about individual rights. I like that because it proves what you really are.

Bugsy: The Bill of Rights was created to protect the power of government. For example, government has to have guns. Without the Bill of Rights, government may get rid of its guns. We can't have that, the government must have guns.

Bugsy: Oh yeah, there's no hypocrisy with my view only government should have guns and my claim government is murdering black people because I said so, no hypocrisy here
Your “post re-writes” are very lame. Challenge yourself - try to refute what people actually say.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
Your “post re-writes” are very lame. Challenge yourself - try to refute what people actually say.
You just said the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right. Do you read your own stupid crap?

So if it isn't an individual right, and now you say that doesn't mean you think it's a government right, what is it? You just generally blow off the Bill of Rights, or what?
 

Abatis

Council Member
First, you ask me about what Burger said, and what I have been “harping about.” The transcript of what Burger said is above. You know what he said (not what I said), and now you pretend not to know what he said. Deplorable.
I know precisely what Burger said; I'm the only one here who actually quoted his PBS interview (and the earlier Parade commentary). I have only asked you to explain what you think Burger said.

You assigned the "fraud" characterization to anyone who speaks for the gun rights side and you also claimed that what you believe Burger's "fraud" characterization to be, is "shared" by the Heller dissents. That's the "harping" I speak of , the bald claims and kooky accusations that you have made, employing Burger's "fraud" term as a cudgel -- without ever explaining what exactly the "fraud" is to you.

Second, you pretend that the 2nd Amendment individual rights debate is answered by the fact that individuals have standing to bring suits concerning its meaning. That’s obviously nonsense - individuals have standing to raise issues concerning the meaning and interpretation of all Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights. That tells us nothing about their meaning and scope.
Those goalposts getting heavy yet? You can't really be that dense can you, standing is decided before the merits of the case are even briefed / heard.

What does the denial of standing tell us?

During the heyday of the "state's right" in the lower federal courts, the 9th Circuit was famous for just denying standing to any person trying to raise a 2nd Amendment claim in their jurisdiction. Since Hickman v Block held the right protected by the 2ndA was a right of California to organize and operate their state militia, no citizen had standing to claim the 2nd Amendment's protections in that Circuit. The court didn't need to examine the "meaning" or "scope" of the right, they eliminated the right from being claimed by individual citizens.

SCOTUS on the other hand, having never embraced either the "state's right" or "militia right" interpretations, the assumption is that the right is a pre-existing, not granted by the 2nd Amendment individual right and any individual can raise a claim, even citizens who have had the right disabled like felons -- see Lewis v US, 1980).

Third, you ask me what I “think Burger said.” We don’t have to wonder what he said - the transcript is above.
Yes, I have been asking you to provide your "take" on Burger's statement. You throw the word "fraud" around as if you have a particular belief in what Burger is speaking of; you apply it generally to "gun nuts" but what specifically does it mean, to you?

You were the one who claimed the Heller dissenters disagreed with what he said.
No, I disagreed with you saying the Heller dissents "shared" Burger's assignment of the word "fraud" to the individual right interpretation.

My disagreement is with you, not Burger . . . Burger is off on his own, as I said,"frozen in time" with no relevance to the current legal reality. His incoherent utterances are all but forgotten, only to be resuscitated by doofuses like you on message boards.

You
are the one bringing him into the present, you are the one breathing life into his defunct ideas, you are the one using Burger's words as a club . . . But you don't have the integrity or the ability to tell me what you think those words mean. That's just pathetic.

You haven’t substantiated that. I can’t do it for you. Indeed, I don’t think it can be done.
Well, I know the Heller dissenting Justices said that the individual right interpretation was the correct one, that it was the one represented in all three opinions issued that day in June, 2008, and I know the dissenters said that the individual right interpretation was the interpretation that has been represented consistently in the Supreme Court's precedent.

Now, I haven't and I'm not going to bother associating the dissenting opinions against Burger's "fraud" claim, that's not my argument, that's yours. I'll just quote what Breyer's dissent says (emphasis added) and you tell me where my analysis is wrong and exactly how the dissenting opinions demonstrate this "shared" alignment you claim to see with Burger's "fraud" statement:


"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."



Just to recap:

In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point, based on our precedent and today's opinions that the Amendment protects and individual right, a holding which the entire Court subscribes -- See also, the majority opinion and Stevens' dissent.


Good luck.
Since I have the Constitution, the law and the facts on my side I don't need luck.
Since you have none of those on your side, you are the one who needs luck.
I'll wish you no luck because you are a duplicitous squirmy caitiff and deserve only scorn and rebuke for your complete lack of integrity.

.
 
Last edited:

Abatis

Council Member
But both of the dissenting opinions disagree with the SCOTUS 5 majority opinion on the individuals rights question. You now concede that, right?
Are you on drugs?

All four dissenting Justices say the individual right interpretation is the correct one, the one represented in all three Heller opinions and has been the consistent holding in the precedent of the Supreme Court AND THAT THE ENTIRE COURT SUBSCRIBES TO THAT HOLDING:

The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point . . . based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
Really just stop the BS and grow the hell up.

.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
I know precisely what Burger said; I'm the only one here who actually quoted his PBS interview (and the earlier Parade commentary). I have only asked you to explain what you think Burger said.

You assigned the "fraud" characterization to anyone who speaks for the gun rights side and you also claimed that what you believe Burger's "fraud" characterization to be, is "shared" by the Heller dissents. That's the "harping" I speak of , the bald claims and kooky accusations that you have made, employing Burger's "fraud" term as a cudgel -- without ever explaining what exactly the "fraud" is to you.



Those goalposts getting heavy yet? You can't really be that dense can you, standing is decided before the merits of the case are even briefed / heard.

What does the denial of standing tell us?

During the heyday of the "state's right" in the lower federal courts, the 9th Circuit was famous for just denying standing to any person trying to raise a 2nd Amendment claim in their jurisdiction. Since Hickman v Block held the right protected by the 2ndA was a right of California to organize and operate their state militia, no citizen had standing to claim the 2nd Amendment's protections in that Circuit. The court didn't need to examine the "meaning" or "scope" of the right, they eliminated the right from being claimed by individual citizens.

SCOTUS on the other hand, having never embraced either the "state's right" or "militia right" interpretations, the assumption is that the right is a pre-existing, not granted by the 2nd Amendment individual right and any individual can raise a claim, even citizens who have had the right disabled like felons -- see Lewis v US, 1980).



Yes, I have been asking you to provide your "take" on Burger's statement. You throw the word "fraud" around as if you have a particular belief in what Burger is speaking of; you apply it generally to "gun nuts" but what specifically does it mean, to you?



No, I disagreed with you saying the Heller dissents "shared" Burger's assignment of the word "fraud" to the individual right interpretation.

My disagreement is with you, not Burger . . . Burger is off on his own, as I said,"frozen in time" with no relevance to the current legal reality. His incoherent utterances are all but forgotten, only to be resuscitated by doofuses like you on message boards.

You
are the one bringing him into the present, you are the one breathing life into his defunct ideas, you are the one using Burger's words as a club . . . But you don't have the integrity or the ability to tell me what you think those words mean. That's just pathetic.



Well, I know the Heller dissenting Justices said that the individual right interpretation was the correct one, that it was the one represented in all three opinions issued that day in June, 2008, and I know the dissenters said that the individual right interpretation was the interpretation that has been represented consistently in the Supreme Court's precedent.

Now, I haven't and I'm not going to bother associating the dissenting opinions against Burger's "fraud" claim, that's not my argument, that's yours. I'll just quote what Breyer's dissent says (emphasis added) and you tell me where my analysis is wrong and exactly how the dissenting opinions demonstrate this "shared" alignment you claim to see with Burger's "fraud" statement:


"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."



Just to recap:

In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point, based on our precedent and today's opinions that the Amendment protects and individual right, a holding which the entire Court subscribes -- See also, the majority opinion and Stevens' dissent.




Since I have the Constitution, the law and the facts on my side I don't need luck.
Since you have none of those on your side, you are the one who needs luck.
I'll wish you no luck because you are a duplicitous squirmy caitiff and deserve only scorn and rebuke for your complete lack of integrity.

.
Crikey. You sure do love writing long-winded rants.

Bottom line - I didn’t use the word fraud. Burger did. Yet you continue to ask me what he meant by that, when his words are there to read. You also claim I said the Heller dissenting opinions also used the word fraud. Of course, I said no such thing. And you continue to ignore the Stevens dissent, pretending that the dissenters concluded that it is an individual right, when the contrary is true. In short, you just run around in circles on your dissembling jag.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Are you on drugs?

All four dissenting Justices say the individual right interpretation is the correct one, the one represented in all three Heller opinions and has been the consistent holding in the precedent of the Supreme Court AND THAT THE ENTIRE COURT SUBSCRIBES TO THAT HOLDING:

The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point . . . based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
Really just stop the BS and grow the hell up.

.
The same dissembling as above.

The reality, per Stevens:

“District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench,” he wrote in The Atlantic in May. In 2008, Stevens wrote the principal dissent in the 5–4 decision, strongly arguing that the Second Amendment only protected a collective right to bear arms as part of militia service. The majority, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded otherwise.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/154488/john-paul-stevens-obituary-dc-heller-dissent-antonin-scalia
 
Last edited:

Abatis

Council Member
Crikey. You sure do love writing long-winded rants.
Your errors in fact and reasoning can not be destroyed in a sentence or two.

And here we go!

Bottom line - I didn’t use the word fraud. Burger did. Yet you continue to ask me what he meant by that, when his words are there to read.
Bull excrement! You used it as your own, applying whatever you discern from Burger's statement, telling @freysman his "view" is equatable with the "fraud" Burger was talking about:

Here’s a good piece about SCOTUS Justice Burger, a staunch conservative, describing your view as a “fraud”:

And telling Jack Dallas that IN YOUR OPINION OF BURGER'S ANALYSIS, "Burger . . . calls the gun nut view a “fraud.”:

Since you claim to be a believer in the Constitution, I’m sure you will enjoy the analysis of conservative SCOTUS Chief Justice Burger, in which he calls the gun nut view a “fraud.”

So, you have plucked out and adopted Burger's one word, without any explanation of what it means to you, and thrown out accusations. That is "using the word "fraud'"as your own, with a half-assed appeal to authority fallacy thrown in.

You also claim I said the Heller dissenting opinions also used the word fraud. Of course, I said no such thing.
No. I have only quoted you saying that the dissenting Justices "shared" Burger's "fraud" opinion. That takes some balls, which is why I keep calling you out on it and it seems I've struck a nerve as you just keep on devolving further into lies and deception.

And you continue to ignore the Stevens dissent, pretending that the dissenters concluded that it is an individual right, when the contrary is true. In short, you just run around in circles on your dissembling jag.
Are you being purposefully obtuse or do you just not care that you look like a fool? Do you understand what a concurring opinion is?

Stevens (along with the other lefties) concurred with the Breyer opinion including where Breyer states that the individual right interpretation is the correct one, that it was the interpretation represented in all three opinions issued that day, that the individual right interpretation was the holding that has been represented consistently in the Supreme Court's precedent, and that THE ENTIRE COURT SUBSCRIBES TO THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INTERPRETATION and then, just to be clear, to further support the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INTERPRETATION Breyer cites the majority opinion and Stevens' dissent as equal and agreeing on this point.


"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."


Really, just stop embarrassing yourself, I'm getting tired beating this dead horse you are trying to ride.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Your errors in fact and reasoning can not be destroyed in a sentence or two.

And here we go!



Bull excrement! You used it as your own, applying whatever you discern from Burger's statement, telling @freysman his "view" is equatable with the "fraud" Burger was talking about:


And telling Jack Dallas that IN YOUR OPINION OF BURGER'S ANALYSIS, "Burger . . . calls the gun nut view a “fraud.”:


So, you have plucked out and adopted Burger's one word, without any explanation of what it means to you, and thrown out accusations. That is "using the word "fraud'"as your own, with a half-assed appeal to authority fallacy thrown in.



No. I have only quoted you saying that the dissenting Justices "shared" Burger's "fraud" opinion. That takes some balls, which is why I keep calling you out on it and it seems I've struck a nerve as you just keep on devolving further into lies and deception.



Are you being purposefully obtuse or do you just not care that you look like a fool? Do you understand what a concurring opinion is?

Stevens (along with the other lefties) concurred with the Breyer opinion including where Breyer states that the individual right interpretation is the correct one, that it was the interpretation represented in all three opinions issued that day, that the individual right interpretation was the holding that has been represented consistently in the Supreme Court's precedent, and that THE ENTIRE COURT SUBSCRIBES TO THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INTERPRETATION and then, just to be clear, to further support the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INTERPRETATION Breyer cites the majority opinion and Stevens' dissent as equal and agreeing on this point.


"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."


Really, just stop embarrassing yourself, I'm getting tired beating this dead horse you are trying to ride.
The crafty dissembler at least varies his dissembling from post to post. You don’t even do that. You have your gun nut talking points, and you just keep repeating them.

Of course, you completely ignored the Stevens quote I provided, which put a rest to the lie that the dissenting four justices agreed with the SCOTUS 5 majority on the individual rights question. His condemnation of their holding on that issue could not have been stronger. Indeed, that’s why you completely ignored it, choosing instead to repeat your rant.

Seriously, don’t you think it’s time to just cede the point, lick your wounds, and hope for better days? Try to preserve some dignity.

;-)
 

Abatis

Council Member
Of course, you completely ignored the Stevens quote I provided, which put a rest to the lie that the dissenting four justices agreed with the SCOTUS 5 majority on the individual rights question. His condemnation of their holding on that issue could not have been stronger. Indeed, that’s why you completely ignored it, choosing instead to repeat your rant.
I ignored it because it is Stevens speaking as a private citizen, not as a Justice on the Court. He laid out a conditioned individual right in his dissent but after retirement he devolved into parroting a 1970's circuit judge arguing the pure Cases v US militia right.

His Atlantic article mentioned in your link, his ridiculous NY Times editorial where he advocates for outright repealing of the 2ndA or his book where advocates "adding five words to fix the 2nd Amendment" are puzzling. . . Why does he feel the need to alter the 2ndA to make it say what he wants it to say and do what he wants it to do -- or completely remove it from the Constitution? Kinda proves his reasoning is wrong doesn't it?

Remembering SCOTUS repeatedly saying the right does not flow from the 2nd Amendment and does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence, the question is, just what would his alter or repeal remedies do? It wouldn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . The right isn't granted or given or created by those words, only a leftist, statist, anti-constitution dummy would think altering or removing words would impact the right!

Maybe he should have suggested changing or erasing Newton's Law of Gravity so people wouldn't be injured or killed in falls. Makes about as much sense, talk about a soft head.

Stevens' personal opinions puked up after he left the Court are even more divorced from Supreme Court jurisprudence than Burger's . . . and that was a steaming pile of crap.
 
Last edited:

Bugsy McGurk

President
I ignored it because it is Stevens speaking as a private citizen, not as a Justice on the Court. He laid out a conditioned individual right in his dissent but after retirement he devolved into parroting a 1970's circuit judge arguing the pure Cases v US militia right.

His Atlantic article mentioned in your link, his ridiculous NY Times editorial where he advocates for outright repealing of the 2ndA or his book where advocates "adding five words to fix the 2nd Amendment" are puzzling. . . Why does he feel the need to alter the 2ndA to make it say what he wants it to say and do what he wants it to do -- or completely remove it from the Constitution? Kinda proves his reasoning is wrong doesn't it?

Remembering SCOTUS repeatedly saying the right does not flow from the 2nd Amendment and does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence, the question is, just what would his alter or repeal remedies do? It wouldn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . The right isn't granted or given or created by those words, only a leftist, statist, anti-constitution dummy would think altering or removing words would impact the right!

Maybe he should have suggested changing or erasing Newton's Law of Gravity so people wouldn't be injured or killed in falls. Makes about as much sense, talk about a soft head.

Stevens' personal opinions puked up after he left the Court are even more divorced from Supreme Court jurisprudence than Burger's . . . and that was a steaming pile of crap.
Damn. You are one stubborn dissembling gun nut. Stevens completely debunked your hooey about the dissents’ view on the individuals rights issue, but you STILL pretend the dissent held the opposite view.

Deplorable!
 

now_what

Governor
Supporting Member
Your “post re-writes” are very lame. Challenge yourself - try to refute what people actually say.
I said the same thing. He’s making things up to fit his narrative instead of dealing with what is actually being written. It’s very strange.
 

Abatis

Council Member
Damn. You are one stubborn dissembling gun nut. Stevens completely debunked your hooey about the dissents’ view on the individuals rights issue, but you STILL pretend the dissent held the opposite view.

Deplorable!
If you are correct it is inexplicable why Stevens signed onto the Breyer's dissent; really it makes no sense.

Stevens could have written a "concurring in part" opinion if he really disagreed with Breyer's individual right holding and the affirmation of SCOTUS individual right precedent. Stevens could have just agreed with Breyer's novel balancing test and the Court's decision on striking down the DC statutes would still have been 5-4.

Problem for you is Breyer's dissent is unequivocal and undeniable and he cites Stevens dissent and the majority opinion as "sharing" the individual right interpretation with his dissent.

So, would your hero Stevens really put his name on something that not only misrepresents his deeply held beliefs but insults him by putting his name on it?

Please explain why Stevens signed onto the Breyer's dissent, or, even further down-the-Bugsy-Bunny-rabbit-hole, you can start telling me Breyer's dissent actually rejects the individual right interpretation.

Yeah, that will be great!
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
If you are correct it is inexplicable why Stevens signed onto the Breyer's dissent; really it makes no sense.

Stevens could have written a "concurring in part" opinion if he really disagreed with Breyer's individual right holding and the affirmation of SCOTUS individual right precedent. Stevens could have just agreed with Breyer's novel balancing test and the Court's decision on striking down the DC statutes would still have been 5-4.

Problem for you is Breyer's dissent is unequivocal and undeniable and he cites Stevens dissent and the majority opinion as "sharing" the individual right interpretation with his dissent.

So, would your hero Stevens really put his name on something that not only misrepresents his deeply held beliefs but insults him by putting his name on it?

Please explain why Stevens signed onto the Breyer's dissent, or, even further down-the-Bugsy-Bunny-rabbit-hole, you can start telling me Breyer's dissent actually rejects the individual right interpretation.

Yeah, that will be great!
Progress! Your previous lying contends that the Heller dissenters agreed with the majority on the individual rights question. Thanks to my Winger Truth Extraction Pliers (patent pending), I got you to at least acknowledge the existence of the principal dissenting opinion from Stevens, and you now say I “may be correct” on the views of the dissenters. You’re running out of lying room.

And, of course, I am correct. Stevens has told you that in unequivocal terms. And Breyer joined the Stevens opinion. So, with your last gasp you ignore that and pretend that Breyer’s dissent negates the Stevens dissent, which is daft. In your lame effort, you slice a fragment out of Breyer’s analysis and pretend he agreed with the majority opinion on the individual rights question. I’m sure you know he did no such thing. He proposed a framework for analyzing gun laws even assuming arguendo that there was some sort of individual right. As his agreement with the Stevens dissent makes unmistakenly clear, he did not agree with the majority on the individual rights question...

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

So, I think you’re outta gas. You have no more room to lie or dissemble.

Ready to throw in the towel?

;-)
 

Abatis

Council Member
Please explain why Stevens signed onto the Breyer's dissent, or, even further down-the-Bugsy-Bunny-rabbit-hole, you can start telling me Breyer's dissent actually rejects the individual right interpretation.
you slice a fragment out of Breyer’s analysis and pretend he agreed with the majority opinion on the individual rights question. I’m sure you know he did no such thing.
And we see you chose the Bugsy-Bunny rabbit hole. You chose the Bugsy-Bunny rabbit hole but you only went half-way, you didn't explain how or why you are arguing Breyer denies the individual right interpretation . . . You just declare a Trumpism and say "you know that's true".

No, I emphatically argue that isn't true and that you are totally full of crap and can't logically rebut my argument nor quote and cite anything from a sitting Justice that demonstrates any flaw in my argument.

I'm challenging you to provide the reasoning that supports your opinion, supported by whatever you can cite from the Breyer dissent that would negate what Breyer says in the opening of his opinion:


"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point . . . , based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."​


I expect you to explain how and why the following analysis / assessment of Breyer's express direction above, is incorrect:


When interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment, the starting point, based on the Court's precedent and all three Heller opinions, a point that the entire Court subscribes, is that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, one that is separately possessed by each person, (not collectively possessed nor assigned by the Constitution to an entity or structure created by the Constitution (the Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 militia). The majority opinion and Justice Stevens' dissent are hereby cited as supporting this legal fact.​

Good luck.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
And we see you chose the Bugsy-Bunny rabbit hole. You chose the Bugsy-Bunny rabbit hole but you only went half-way, you didn't explain how or why you are arguing Breyer denies the individual right interpretation . . . You just declare a Trumpism and say "you know that's true".

No, I emphatically argue that isn't true and that you are totally full of crap and can't logically rebut my argument nor quote and cite anything from a sitting Justice that demonstrates any flaw in my argument.

I'm challenging you to provide the reasoning that supports your opinion, supported by whatever you can cite from the Breyer dissent that would negate what Breyer says in the opening of his opinion:


"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point . . . , based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."​


I expect you to explain how and why the following analysis / assessment of Breyer's express direction above, is incorrect:


When interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment, the starting point, based on the Court's precedent and all three Heller opinions, a point that the entire Court subscribes, is that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, one that is separately possessed by each person, (not collectively possessed nor assigned by the Constitution to an entity or structure created by the Constitution (the Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 militia). The majority opinion and Justice Stevens' dissent are hereby cited as supporting this legal fact.​

Good luck.
I already explained that for you, as you know. You just ignored what I said. As you also know, the four Heller dissenters have all made it crystal clear that they reject the majority individual rights position.

Since you completely ignored what I said, and you’re limited to the same gun nut talking point I already thoroughly debunked, I have no choice but to declare total victory.

At this point, you emulate the Black Knight...


;-)
 
Top