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

Abatis

Council Member
I already explained that for you, as you know. You just ignored what I said.
I've ignored you stomping your feet and holding your breath and screaming that I'm wrong. You have devolved to such a debased state that you are deriding quotes from the Justices as "gun nut talking points". . . That's freaking hilarious!

I would have liked to see an explanation of your position set-out, explaining your reasoning and showing in a quote from the opinions where what the dissents clearly state in their opening paragraphs is negated.

I get that Stevens and Burger got all antsy and went full jackass after they left the Court but that doesn't count for anything when we are discussing the actual 2ndA / RKBA opinions they and the other lefties put their names on (for Burger that would be a big fat zero).

As you also know, the four Heller dissenters have all made it crystal clear that they reject the majority individual rights position.
Except that you keep saying that and I keep re-posting actual quotes of them saying the right protected by the 2nd is an individual right and that the big pressing, nearly 7 decades long question over the 2nd Amendment, whether the right is "collective" or "individual" is no longer pertinent to the Court or the discussion in general. Can you explain your incongruity with these actual quotes from the dissents?

Justice Breyer:

"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)."
Justice Stevens:

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

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.
Victory can only happen when one has actually engaged in the battle. You have screamed from across the room and waved your arms maniacally but you haven't really ever engaged in the debate with reason and cited support

Anyone can make bald claims and strut and flex but when you haven't thrown a punch, you sure as hell can't claim victory.

.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
I've ignored you stomping your feet and holding your breath and screaming that I'm wrong. You have devolved to such a debased state that you are deriding quotes from the Justices as "gun nut talking points". . . That's freaking hilarious!

I would have liked to see an explanation of your position set-out, explaining your reasoning and showing in a quote from the opinions where what the dissents clearly state in their opening paragraphs is negated.

I get that Stevens and Burger got all antsy and went full jackass after they left the Court but that doesn't count for anything when we are discussing the actual 2ndA / RKBA opinions they and the other lefties put their names on (for Burger that would be a big fat zero).



Except that you keep saying that and I keep re-posting actual quotes of them saying the right protected by the 2nd is an individual right and that the big pressing, nearly 7 decades long question over the 2nd Amendment, whether the right is "collective" or "individual" is no longer pertinent to the Court or the discussion in general. Can you explain your incongruity with these actual quotes from the dissents?




Victory can only happen when one has actually engaged in the battle. You have screamed from across the room and waved your arms maniacally but you haven't really ever engaged in the debate with reason and cited support

Anyone can make bald claims and strut and flex but when you haven't thrown a punch, you sure as hell can't claim victory.

.
Nice little summaries for your reading pleasure:

STEVENS’ DISSENT

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Stevens, after conducting his own extensive analysis of the Second Amendment's text, history, and purpose, disparaged Scalia's historical analysis, stating that the Court had based its holding on "a strained and unpersuasive reading" of the amendment. In Stevens' opinion, the amendment protects the individual right to bear arms only for certain military purposes and does not limit the authority of legislatures to regulate private, civilian use of firearms (Id., at 2822).

BREYER’S DISSENT

Justice Breyer dismisses the notion of an “untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas" (Id., at 2870). He argues that the Second Amendment protects “militia-related, not self-defense related, interests.”

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

Now, I would like you to again argue that the dissents agreed with the majority on the individual rights question.

It would be most amusing to see you do that. Kinda like the Black Knight yelling “‘tis only a flesh wound.”

Go!

;-)
 

Abatis

Council Member
Nice little summaries for your reading pleasure:

>SNIP<

Now, I would like you to again argue that the dissents agreed with the majority on the individual rights question.
I would assume Ms. Fox is a very talented researcher who does a good job at the Office of Legislative Research, writing analysis and summaries of issues for the [Democrat majority] legislators in the Connecticut General Assembly.

I'm not sure why you feel I should give her opinion any weight or defer to her opinion of what the Heller dissents meant when they plainly said, "The Amendment protects an “individual” right", when I can read it just fine for myself.

Did you just Google "Heller dissent analysis that agrees with me, written by a non-lawyer who is a political appointee for a rabidly gun controlling liberal hellhole state legislature?"

It is obvious you have absolutely no knowledge of this subject and you just go on a panicked search for bias confirming commentary when challenged to defend your woefully incorrect beliefs. That you stoop so low as to present this BS as authoritative and dispositive would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

And Ms. Fox might be insulted with your patronizingly misogynistic "Nice little summaries".
 
Last edited:

Bugsy McGurk

President
I would assume Ms. Fox is a very talented researcher who does a good job at the Office of Legislative Research, writing analysis and summaries of issues for the [Democrat majority] legislators in the Connecticut General Assembly.

I'm not sure why you feel I should give her opinion any weight or defer to her opinion of what the Heller dissents meant when they plainly said, "The Amendment protects an “individual” right", when I can read it just fine for myself.

Did you just Google "Heller dissent analysis that agrees with me, written by a non-lawyer who is a political appointee for a rabidly gun controlling liberal hellhole state legislature?"

It is obvious you have absolutely no knowledge of this subject and you just go on a panicked search for bias confirming commentary when challenged to defend your woefully incorrect beliefs. That you stoop so low as to present this BS as authoritative and dispositive would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

And Ms. Fox might be insulted with your patronizingly misogynistic "Nice little summaries".
Ah, the Black Knight fights on!

And how desperate are you? You resort to slicing the good stuff out of my post and you pretend that the author of the linked analysis just concocted the quotes from the two dissents.

Deplorable!

Fight on, Black Knight!

;-)
 

Abatis

Council Member
Ah, the Black Knight fights on!

And how desperate are you? You resort to slicing the good stuff out of my post and you pretend that the author of the linked analysis just concocted the quotes from the two dissents.

Deplorable!

Fight on, Black Knight!

;-)
LOL. There was no "good stuff" because her opinion isn't authoritative. I can link to an artlice by Stephen Halbrook who has a hellovalot more credentials that this woman that will shred her and you. But I wouldn't cite a source like him or her.

You obviously did not read the article you linked to. It confirms my oft-stated opinion that Stevens held for the Cornell "conditioned individual right" and that Breyer wanted to apply a hokey, standard of scrutiny he just made up under which the DC statutes would have been upheld:


"Stevens asserts that the Second Amendment (1) protects the individual right to bear arms only in the context of military service and (2) does not limit government's authority to regulate civilian use or possession of firearms. He describes the majority's individual-right holding as “strained and unpersuasive”; its conclusion, “overwrought and novel.” Stevens was joined in his dissent by Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter.

In his dissent, Breyer argues that even if the Second Amendment, in addition to militia-related purposes, protects an individual's right of self-defense, that assumption should be the beginning of the constitutional inquiry, not the end. Breyer contends that there are no purely logical or conceptual ways to determine the constitutionality of gun control laws, such as the District's law. Thus, a sounder approach would be a “balancing test” that focuses on “practicalities” to determine what gun control laws would be consistent with the amendment even if it is interpreted as protecting a “wholly separate interest in individual self-defense.”"​
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
LOL.

You obviously did not read the article you linked to. It confirms my oft-stated opinion that Stevens held for the Cornell "conditioned individual right" and that Breyer wanted to apply a hokey, standard of scrutiny he just made up under which the DC statutes would have been upheld:


"Stevens asserts that the Second Amendment (1) protects the individual right to bear arms only in the context of military service and (2) does not limit government's authority to regulate civilian use or possession of firearms. He describes the majority's individual-right holding as “strained and unpersuasive”; its conclusion, “overwrought and novel.” Stevens was joined in his dissent by Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter.

In his dissent, Breyer argues that even if the Second Amendment, in addition to militia-related purposes, protects an individual's right of self-defense, that assumption should be the beginning of the constitutional inquiry, not the end. Breyer contends that there are no purely logical or conceptual ways to determine the constitutionality of gun control laws, such as the District's law. Thus, a sounder approach would be a “balancing test” that focuses on “practicalities” to determine what gun control laws would be consistent with the amendment even if it is interpreted as protecting a “wholly separate interest in individual self-defense.”"​
Bottom line - they both rejected the individual rights holding of the majority. Unequivocally. You now know that. You were dead wrong. No amount of your “selective editing” of my posts or the linked piece can change that. You’re just another dissembling gun nut who is lost at sea once your programmed talking points are reverse-engineered and refuted.

But like the Black Knight, you refuse to concede even when you have been thoroughly trounced and your refusal to concede becomes laughable.

Fight on, Black Knight!

;-)
 

Abatis

Council Member
Bottom line - they both rejected the individual rights holding of the majority. Unequivocally. You now know that. You were dead wrong. No amount of your “selective editing” of my posts or the linked piece can change that.
Is your definition of "selective editing" anything that the Justices say (what you call, "gun nut talking points") that refutes what you say?

Really, it isn't at all "selective editing" to quote the words, "The Amendment protects an “individual” right" when they are the words of a Justice in an opinion that the other dissenters signed on to. It sure doesn't stop you from quoting the same words or any other words in the opinion and offering your own analysis of them or offering analysis or parsing of any quoted excerpts that you think support you.

But you didn't do that.

You can't do that.

You need to go rooting in leftist mass media to find a senile former Court member's lamentations in an Op-Ed, or go Googling in the bowels of the internet to find some state legislative researcher's opinion -- none of which have footnotes, no source citations, NOTHING that would allow any thinking person to afford it any weight . . .

Hey, I heard a former teacher in a high school in Debuque Iowa wrote a Tweet saying the Heller dissents rejected the individual right interpretation. Hurry up, Google it!
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Is your definition of "selective editing" anything that the Justices say (what you call, "gun nut talking points") that refutes what you say?

Really, it isn't at all "selective editing" to quote the words, "The Amendment protects an “individual” right" when they are the words of a Justice in an opinion that the other dissenters signed on to. It sure doesn't stop you from quoting the same words or any other words in the opinion and offering your own analysis of them or offering analysis or parsing of any quoted excerpts that you think support you.

But you didn't do that.

You can't do that.

You need to go rooting in leftist mass media to find a senile former Court member's lamentations in an Op-Ed, or go Googling in the bowels of the internet to find some state legislative researcher's opinion -- none of which have footnotes, no source citations, NOTHING that would allow any thinking person to afford it any weight . . .

Hey, I heard a former teacher in a high school in Debuque Iowa wrote a Tweet saying the Heller dissents rejected the individual right interpretation. Hurry up, Google it!
You’re just repeating your debunked dissembling at this point - ignoring the Stevens dissent and its rejection of the majority’s individual rights holding, pretending that Breyer disagreed due to his “for sake of argument” alternative analysis, pretending the author of the linked piece concocted the opinion quotes, babbling about tweets from Iowa school teachers, and related lies and dishonest idiocy. All to keep denying the obvious - the dissenting justices disagreed with the majority’s individual rights holding.

The linked Black Knight video ends with the Black Knight’s opponent staring down at the totally vanquished Black Knight with pity, and strolling past him. It’s time for me to do the same.

;-)
 

freyasman

Senator
You’re just repeating your debunked dissembling at this point - ignoring the Stevens dissent and its rejection of the majority’s individual rights holding, pretending that Breyer disagreed due to his “for sake of argument” alternative analysis, pretending the author of the linked piece concocted the opinion quotes, babbling about tweets from Iowa school teachers, and related lies and dishonest idiocy. All to keep denying the obvious - the dissenting justices disagreed with the majority’s individual rights holding.

The linked Black Knight video ends with the Black Knight’s opponent staring down at the totally vanquished Black Knight with pity, and strolling past him. It’s time for me to do the same.

;-)
And the King of The Dodgeboys runs away...... again. After getting yet another humiliating beatdown, that he will deny happened, and claiming victory.... again.:rolleyes:





Some things never change, I guess.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
And the King of The Dodgeboys runs away...... again. After getting yet another humiliating beatdown, that he will deny happened, and claiming victory.... again.:rolleyes:





Some things never change, I guess.
Ah, perhaps we have another Black Knight. The last one was left in a bloodied heap.

Perhaps you also wish to claim that the four Heller dissenters agreed with the majority’s holding on the individual rights issue?

Go for it...

;-)
 
Top