Vegas Free-for-All - Things that make Fonzie say, "hmmmm...."

Things that make Fonzie say, "hmmmm...."

Number51

Feb 7, 2013
1:42am

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: Number51
Quote
Originally posted by: arshaleign
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
You really don't understand the second amendment. Maybe Penn and Teller can clear it up for you.
Thank you for sharing with me a famous comedy magic duo's analysis of a portion of the U.S. Constitution.

To return the favor, you may enjoy reading what Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States once wrote about that same portion of our Constitution. Appointed by President Gerald Ford, Justice Stevens served 34 years on the court and always struck me as pretty wise about the U.S. Constitution.

About the 2nd, Justice Stevens once wrote:

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated.
(Emphasis added).

Source

Yes, And Justice Stevens lost just about every public debate he ever participated in...
Who was keeping score, Rasmussen?

Quick re-cap.
Penn & Teller, and "social gatherings".
Or
Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute.

Got it.

I don't think you got it. Chilcoot posted the dissenting opinion. The majority of the court ruled that Penn and Teller's interpretation is correct.

I am positive that you don't get it.

Way to dig deep to uncover that "Chilcoot posted the dissenting opinion". It says exactly that at the top of the page. Good find though.

The point:
One source is the exact quote of a Supreme Court Justice's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

One source is funny magicians.

One source is a random internet guy that claims he heard something at a social function.

I'm going to go with the Supreme Court Justice.

If you would like to quote the majority opinion, feel free, it is also available at the link posted by Chilcoot. I'm sure it will carry more weight than a TV show called "Bullshit" or alleged party talk. Credibility is the point. Get it?

ken2v

Feb 7, 2013
1:50am

Block User

The point is, "intent" is a bouncing ball, and it tends to bounce the direction of an individual's personal philosophy. Courts ruling in favor of gay marriage is right in line with FF "intent" to liberals, while the righties will scream activism. Abortion? Busing? National health care? Japanese internment? Limits on presidential terms. Banning booze and unbanning it? It is absurd to say the FF had a specific intent in mind that would not or should not evolve over time. Hell, the Constitution was amended 10 times right out the chute, and then another 17 since; the damn thing INSTITUTIONALIZED slavery, fer crissake. And some of our most significant SC rulings came out pretty damn early, clearly interpreting what the FF did/did not "intend."

Opinions can and should differ. It is just laughable to assume there is only one way to rule based on archaic writings and comments based on -- as hoops himself says -- now-archaic philosophies.

CowboyKell

Feb 7, 2013
2:02am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v
The point is, "intent" is a bouncing ball, and it tends to bounce the direction of an individual's personal philosophy. Courts ruling in favor of gay marriage is right in line with FF "intent" to liberals, while the righties will scream activism. Abortion? Busing? National health care? Japanese internment? Limits on presidential terms. Banning booze and unbanning it? It is absurd to say the FF had a specific intent in mind that would not or should not evolve over time. Hell, the Constitution was amended 10 times right out the chute, and then another 17 since; the damn thing INSTITUTIONALIZED slavery, fer crissake. And some of our most significant SC rulings came out pretty damn early, clearly interpreting what the FF did/did not "intend."

Opinions can and should differ. It is just laughable to assume there is only one way to rule based on archaic writings and comments based on -- as hoops himself says -- now-archaic philosophies.

This is the sanest thing written in this thread so far.

My earlier post was only meant to point out how different opinions effect our interpretations of law based on the power level of the individual. Justice Ginsberg, who we are still good friends with, has a vastly different view than I have, but it's her opinion that counts.

snidely333

Feb 7, 2013
2:12am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Number51

Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: Number51
Quote
Originally posted by: arshaleign
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
You really don't understand the second amendment. Maybe Penn and Teller can clear it up for you.
Thank you for sharing with me a famous comedy magic duo's analysis of a portion of the U.S. Constitution.

To return the favor, you may enjoy reading what Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States once wrote about that same portion of our Constitution. Appointed by President Gerald Ford, Justice Stevens served 34 years on the court and always struck me as pretty wise about the U.S. Constitution.

About the 2nd, Justice Stevens once wrote:

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated.
(Emphasis added).

Source

Yes, And Justice Stevens lost just about every public debate he ever participated in...
Who was keeping score, Rasmussen?

Quick re-cap.
Penn & Teller, and "social gatherings".
Or
Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute.

Got it.

I don't think you got it. Chilcoot posted the dissenting opinion. The majority of the court ruled that Penn and Teller's interpretation is correct.

Penn and Teller's interpretation has been confirmed by SCOTUS and is the law of the land. Instead of learning the proper interpretation of 2A you instead attack the messengers and refuse to admit that Penn and Teller were correct and that Justice Stevens was outvoted and therefore, his opinion on the matter rendered moot.

While it is still an interesting topic to debate, you seem more willing to want to argue about who said what instead of the substance of what was said.

ken2v

Feb 7, 2013
2:13am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote
Originally posted by: ken2v
You know, the sacrosanct as-written intent of a bunch of slaveholders who were against universal suffrage.

Yea..the same buncha guys who musta had there heads up their asses when they wrote the first also, eh? You want to just toss that one to the side as well, or are there some others you don't agree with?

JOHN

John, what have I proposed tossing out? Where in this thread have I suggested something I want to "toss"?

snidely333

Feb 7, 2013
2:21am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v

Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: ken2v
You know, the sacrosanct as-written intent of a bunch of slaveholders who were against universal suffrage.

Yea..the same buncha guys who musta had there heads up their asses when they wrote the first also, eh? You want to just toss that one to the side as well, or are there some others you don't agree with?

JOHN

John, what have I proposed tossing out? Where in this thread have I suggested something I want to "toss"?

The SCOTUS justices are not much different than posters on here that select the facts/legal arguments to support their political leanings.

All in all, the founding fathers did a fine job on the Constitution.

jatki

Feb 7, 2013
2:27am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v

Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: ken2v
You know, the sacrosanct as-written intent of a bunch of slaveholders who were against universal suffrage.

Yea..the same buncha guys who musta had there heads up their asses when they wrote the first also, eh? You want to just toss that one to the side as well, or are there some others you don't agree with?

JOHN

John, what have I proposed tossing out? Where in this thread have I suggested something I want to "toss"?

Well Ken, I suppose the derogatory reference to the FF's here I suppose threw me off and made it sound like you thought the right to bear arms was as obsolete as these two items. Some things do become obsolete others should never be consoidered obsolete such as the first and second amendment, both of those are for specific reasons.

I assumed (I know, I know, never do that ) that was your intent, if you are saying it wasn't I apologize.

J

ken2v

Feb 7, 2013
2:45am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote
Originally posted by: ken2v
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: ken2v
You know, the sacrosanct as-written intent of a bunch of slaveholders who were against universal suffrage.

Yea..the same buncha guys who musta had there heads up their asses when they wrote the first also, eh? You want to just toss that one to the side as well, or are there some others you don't agree with?

JOHN

John, what have I proposed tossing out? Where in this thread have I suggested something I want to "toss"?

Derogatory? Look. They fucked up big time with the slavery thing. And I don't care to give them the "hoops exemption" simply because some other putatively "advanced, liberal, western" societies had not put the kibosh on the practice either. Did they get it mostly right? Of course. And bully to them. It was pretty studly what they pulled off, and hopefully we're all thankful for it. I just don't see them as being in some type of religio-spiritual pantheon of almighty mightiness where we can't discuss their obvious flaws.

As for obsolescence, how can some parts of the defining document have an expiry date but not others? Are only some of the self-evident truths truths?

The Constitution has been interpreted and acted upon (changed, clarified, nullified) since the time the ink had barely dried. That's why it still works. I sense you and I have a different opinion on what, in the extant case, the 2nd "means" and how we see the organic underpinnings of that meaning. Is one of us "wrong"?

arshaleign

Feb 7, 2013
3:18am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: CowboyKell
...On the second ammendment I have always held to the belief that a citizen should be able to arm himself to the extent of the basic military foot soldier...

I'm cool with that.

But our soldiers (and sailors and marines) have to undergo background checks, don't they?
Our soldiers are prohibited from carrying arm into many civilian situations, aren't they?
Our soldiers are required to prove expertise when it comes to handling their weapons, aren't they?

Requiring civilian gun owners to do the same? Sounds like a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment, according you YOUR criteria.

Dan Svatass

Feb 7, 2013
3:21am

Block User

ken2v's hitting it out of the park at the moment. Well said.

«‹4 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now