Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Papewaio]

That's fine. I'm sure you can appeal with a higher court. Oops apparently public opinion doesn't outrank the Supreme Court, neither does any other Court in the US.

So until the amendment is amended it has been shown by the highest rank Judiciary that individualism in this instance trumps collective rights.

[Lemur]

it has been shown by the highest rank Judiciary that individualism in this instance trumps collective rights.

There you go with "shown" again; nobody is showing anything. That's how we choose to read that part of the amendment. A future court could legitimately decide on a different reading. Language is imprecise and elastic, which is why lawyers stay employed, and why nobody codes in English grammar. Not even Strunk and White can get a game of Pong onscreen.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You hear people say that "It isn't an individual right, it's only for militia's, which should be well regulated by the government. Also, we don't need them anymore because the government is good and they are outdated fighting forces which could never be successful at opposing tyranny. So, the amendment is stupid and outdated and should be overturned. We just want to know where your guns are and who has them - this is just reasonable and common sense. We can do this because it hasn't resulted in the end of the world in the UK or Australia, who we emulate on gun control. Also, once we know who has them we won't confiscate them, even though we want to and don't believe that you have a right to them as individuals and even though other countries have had success confiscating after they've had them registered. We only want the ones that look especially dangerous anyway, even though they are functionally equivalent to handguns, shotguns, and rifles that nearly everyone has. But we won't come for them, probably. But why shouldn't we? Anyone who says that we will is crazy and paranoid"

It's a rambling mess.

And you wonder why people who like guns and don't see gun crime don't want anything to do with this. You all know why we don't want to start down that path, we know what is down the path. This isn't a slippery slope, it's merely your stated objective, which can't get off the ground at the moment.

[Lemur]

You're conflating about three different arguments, making them badly, and then using this self-generated caricature to justify your own position. Weaksauce.

Try responding to an individual rather than your imagined foe.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You're conflating about three different arguments, making them badly, and then using this self-generated caricature to justify your own position. Weaksauce.

Try responding to an individual rather than your imagined foe.

I've heard all of these things in this thread. What is your argument? I've only heard support for every democratic proposal from you. The only time you find fault with them is when they don't have the ability to pass in this climate. There simply is no "too far" when it comes to gun rights. You don't even believe that we have an individual right, that was merely the error in judgement by the court. How much respect for an individuals right to own a gun when you don't believe that right exists? You simply have no common ground with me on this issue. You flat out do not believe that I have a right to own my firearms. I oppose you and your ideas to remove these rights.

If you had the final vote to overturn 2A, you would do it.

[Lemur]

Well, I was talking to Pape about the use of the verb "shown" in the context of the Supreme Court interpreting the Second Amendment. I was saying that the Supreme Court's decisions are not revealed holy truth, but rather decisions on how to interpret language, which is (by virtue of being a human language) vague, imprecise, and prone to multiple readings.

If you read the last six posts or so you'd be crystal clear on that bit of discussion.

You jumping in to slay your straw man was a bit of a non sequitur.

-response to the edit-

Right, by saying that the current reading of 2A is not the only or inevitable reading, I reveal myself as the boogeyman. Boo!

I shoot guns, I was raised in a military family, and I enjoy guns. I don't want to see 2A repealed, although I do think our collective interpretation of it is particular, and not inevitable.

You flat out do not believe that I have a right to own my firearms. I oppose you and your ideas to remove these rights.

If you had the final vote to overturn 2A, you would do it.

And if I actually believed any of that, or expressed such a belief anywhere, you might have the beginnings of a point.

Please feel free to show me where I have expressed those opinions. The Backroom is now searchable. Please, go ahead. Bring the noise, brutha.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's not just their musings and whims, it is stare decisis. It cannot just be ignored if it is shown to be the body of the interpretation of law. Or, it could be, but seldom is for justices deciding cases. They don't just wake up after years of it clearly being an individual and collective right and say "nope, our mistake". You make it sound like they just shake a magic 8-ball.

Thanks for dodging and not offering your own underlying ideological concept of the right to bear arms or defend oneself or possessions. Cover yourself with your wiki logical fallacy terminology as you often do, but you still have done nothing but criticize the ideas of your opposition and appeal to emotion. Let's see some principle other than your beloved "moderation". Where do you want laws to go?

[Lemur]

Again, show me where I have called for the repeal of 2A.

Also, stare decisis just means "abiding by precedent." If you actually read what I was saying to Pape, you'd see that I mentioned precedent, as well as moral, logical, and political considerations. All of which factor into a judge's decisions. How is that controversial?

Thing with law and precedence is that once a ruling is made it becomes precedence. Only thing that can change that is a ruling by a higher court or a change in the law the precedence refers to. There is no higher court, so it will take a change in the law. In this case an amendment as it is a Consitutional change.

The highest courts are very unlikely to change their predecessors decisions until a law is significantly changed.

Incorrect. The highest courts are certainly bound to pay more attention to their own precedent, but by your logic, Dred Scott could never have been overturned, and the Supreme Court would never reverse itself on a position. Ever. Okay, it's a little more complicated than I'm making it sound, but I think the Org's legal eagles will back me up here. The Supremes do change interpretations over time. This is not a bad thing. I, for one, am glad to see interracial marriage and consensual buggery made legal by Supreme fiat.

Ok, so you are against the repeal of 2A. Why?

Why am I not in favor of a position I have never advocated? Dude, you either need to drink more or less. Not sure which applies.

[Papewaio]

Thing with law and precedence is that once a ruling is made it becomes precedence. Only thing that can change that is a ruling by a higher court or a change in the law the precedence refers to. There is no higher court, so it will take a change in the law. In this case an amendment as it is a Consitutional change.

The highest courts are very unlikely to change their predecessors decisions until a law is significantly changed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thing with law and precedence is that once a ruling is made it becomes precedence. Only thing that can change that is a ruling by a higher court or a change in the law the precedence refers to. There is no higher court, so it will take a change in the law. In this case an amendment as it is a Consitutional change.

The highest courts are very unlikely to change their predecessors decisions until a law is significantly changed.

I agree. 2A has been incorporated to the States as well. It really would take an amendment process to change that now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, I was talking to Pape about the use of the verb "shown" in the context of the Supreme Court interpreting the Second Amendment. I was saying that the Supreme Court's decisions are not revealed holy truth, but rather decisions on how to interpret language, which is (by virtue of being a human language) vague, imprecise, and prone to multiple readings.

If you read the last six posts or so you'd be crystal clear on that bit of discussion.

You jumping in to slay your straw man was a bit of a non sequitur.

-response to the edit-

Right, by saying that the current reading of 2A is not the only or inevitable reading, I reveal myself as the boogeyman. Boo!

I shoot guns, I was raised in a military family, and I enjoy guns. I don't want to see 2A repealed, although I do think our collective interpretation of it is particular, and not inevitable.


And if I actually believed any of that, or expressed such a belief anywhere, you might have the beginnings of a point.

Please feel free to show me where I have expressed those opinions. The Backroom is now searchable. Please, go ahead. Bring the noise, brutha.

Ok, so you are against the repeal of 2A. Why?