Wales?
“You blithering idiot…”
—Ex Tank
Ain’t he a riot? 
Peace,
mangeorge
Work like you don’t need the money…
Love like you’ve never been hurt…
Dance like nobody’s watching! Source???
ExTank:
Blithering idiot?
You are a gem. I made my offer and stick by it. You offered a case of a ‘restraining order’ not a challenge to the Second Amendment.
I have reviewed your “twenty cases” and none of them are challenges on Second Amendment grounds to a gun control law.
Perhaps if you could learn to read you’d have a better time arguing. Stop reacting and read, dude.
The NRA has been lieing to you for years. Stop blithering and DO THE CHALLENGE. Get the NRA to back you! Get a lawyer and challenge any gun control law in this country! Otherwise, you are just so much bullshit.
DO IT!
You disingenuous shyster…
I can’t challenge any gun control laws on the books because my Constitutional rights haven’t been violated the way Mr. Emerson’s have been.
Gun control laws in and of themselves are not violations of the Second Amendment; your spurious claims that the NRA opposes all gun control legislation is becoming tiresome and repetitive.
Perhaps you feel that if you keep repeating your lie, it will become accepted as truth.
And besides, neither myself or any organization can just walk up to the Supreme Court and say “Hey! You guys! Gimme a ruling!”
You claim to be a lawyer? And you don’t know how the Federal Court system works?
Mr. Emerson’s case, to wit: he was arrested and charged with felony possession of a handgun while under a temporary restraining order, was struck down on Second and Fifth Amendment Grounds.
The twenty cases I cited were struck down as unconstitutional, as they violated the right to keep and bear arms: there is only one amendment in the constitution where you will find the words “the right to keep and bear arms”, and it’s the Second Amendment.
Ergo, those twenty cases were struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
Try and twist words to distort the truth all you want; doesn’t change the fact that there are some gun-control laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional on second amendment grounds, among others.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“Mr. Emerson awaits his money.”
“You disingenuous shyster…”
—Ex Tank
Heh heh.
—mangeorge
“Perhaps if you could learn to read you’d have a better time arguing.”
—jdv
Whoa.
—mangeorge
Tsk, tsk.
Ex Tank obviously knows how to read.
And jdv is surely not a shyster.
C’mon you two, fight nice.
Makes for shorter and easier to follow posts.
Peace,
mangeorge
Lieing? Maybe better spelling would make reading easier. Just a thought. I am not on any side of this debate, but maybe it should go to the Pit.
OK, short post.
For the last time, ExTank, take me up on it or shut up. Quit quibbling and DO IT!
I’m tired of the name calling too. WHY DON’T YOU DO IT???
[[BigIron, Jodih, and Nickrz:
I said I would pay all legal fees. What are you worried about? Hire a lawyer and go to it!
Or is all your phony baloney just talk?
Put up or shut up! Get a lawyer, successfully challenge ANY US law on gun control on 2nd Amendment grounds, and I will pay your lawyer/legal fees plus $10,000.
What are you waiting for? Is your bullshit being called? ]] jdv
No, but yours seemingly is. Your moronic challenge is one of the lamest attempts at an argument I have ever seen. Putting aside the fact that the successful challenger would have to put up his or her own money first and trust in he dubious proposition that you would eventually pony up at the end of the litigation, you are ignoring a rather fundamental litigation issue (one that makes me question your assertion of legal knowledge) – the problem of standing.
Citizens cannot generally go around filing lawsuits seeking to have this or that law declared unconstitutional. Rather, you have to show to the court that you have a direct and concrete stake in the matter, and this must involve some legitimate legal dispute with another party. In this case, the laws you would seek to challenge are generally criminal laws, so to challenge one would likely require the challenger to break the law and get himself arrested, after which he or she could try to argue the law’s constitutional infirmity. A gun dealer presumeably might be able to seek a declaratory judgement, but beyond that I am not sure. Perhaps there is an oddball exception here that would allow some less risky challenges, but I am not aware of any offhand.
In other words, this is a ridiculous and unrealistic “challenge” that has no place in any legitimate debate.
[[You’re bullshit is challenged; you have believed the NRA’s crap and now I ask you to put up or shut up. Any takers? Ask your pal Rush Limbaugh.]]
Just because I follow a reasonable reading of the text and history of the 2d Amendment means that Rush is my pal?
The meaning of the US Constitution depends not only on legal opinions but the general consensus of the American public. It’s like the Bible, people interpret it in many different ways.
For almost 100 years after the US Constitution was adopted, slavery was legal in this country. For longer than that, women were denied the right to vote.
Did the Founding Fathers mean for women to have the vote? Obviously not.
Depending on who you talk to, the second amendment will be interpreted as meaning “the right to bear arms applies to members of a regulated militia” or “the right to bear arms applies to Joe Q. Public”.
If the vast majority of the US voting public was in favour of the “well-regulated militia” interpretation, then that’s what the Supreme Court would eventually decide.
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.
I’m not taking sides in the larger gun-control debate (whaddaya think I am, stupid?). But I must point out, jdv, that this entire moronic thread is based upon your challenge that someone step forward and prove you wrong. Apparently, you intend to just sit on the sidelines and veg while some opponent scurries around, spending time and LOTS of money to prove you wrong. The fact that no one will do so doesn’t mean you’re right – it means they’re smart.
The way it works is, you prove your own thesis. You don’t demand someone else disprove it. It’s like junior high – do your own work.
JDV: this message board, and its predecessor on AOL, conducted debates.
To keep any and all discussion from turning into “IS SO!”/“IS NOT”, some unofficial guidelines were agreed upon by practice and were adopted. There is no one to enforce these guidelines but ourselves; however, those who tend to ignore these guidelines are generally labled “Troll” and, at best, ignored; at worst, mercilessly flamed whenever they de-lurk and post anything. Anything!
1. Refrain from sweeping generalizations; “all [insert ethnicity of your choice] are such-and-such”.
2. When you make a claim to something, back it up with “cite”; information from credible agencies and/or organizations, with a hyper-link or an internet address provided.
2.a When your opponent refutes your cite with a “counter-cite”, have the courtesy to read it and acknowledge it, even if you disagree with it, and not flame them for daring to disagree with you
3. If you are going to list or enumerate facts/figures, your list should include not less than three entries; rule #2 applies here as well.
4. Facts/figures from organizations with an agenda are suspect: for instance, Drunk Driving Statistics from the MADD-site are generally suspect.
Not to say that their figures are lies, but they may be somewhat…lopsided.
My NRA cites may be suspect by rule #4; but they are readily verifiable by a simple keyword searches at such places like <FONT COLOR="BLUE>“Comprehensive Legal Research Sites”</FONT> @ http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/refcomp.htm * or from* <FONT COLOR=“BLUE”>“Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute”</FONT> @ http://www.law.cornell.edu/
I just figured, “Why re-invent the wheel?”
Now pay attention, JDV, as #5 is for you.
**5.**Debates on the board stay on the Board! When a debate degenerates to “You wanna say that to my face!?” or “I’ll pay $10,000…”, it’s a generally accepted indication that the poster has lost it, and their argument as well. If you cannot find the information to back up your claims on the interent or from readily available books, and instead rely on spurious claims and challenges, then you have no business being in the debate.
6. Opinion, personal experience and anectdote do not make a argument. If you offer or interject them into a debate, it will not get your position any recognition, or make it any more valid. It will just be acknowledged as an individual’s experience, and not necessarily indicative of a more general truth.
7. Capitalization, punctuation and spelling are appreciated, as are rules of grammar. However, it is considered bad form to point this out unless it is a glaring mistake that detracts from the message.
If the only thing you can respond to about your opponent’s post is to nitpick capitalization, punctuation and grammar, it is generally accepted that your position is weak, as are you.
8. Rants are not arguments; they are what Dennis Miller does for HBO to elicit a laugh and provoke a thought. While there are some funny people on this board than can go one-on-one with Dennis Miller, that doesn’t make an argument’s point any more valid than a dry, boring cite.
9. I’m sure that there are a few others, but my stomach is rumbling and I haven’t started supper yet.
These guidelines are unofficial. No one will THWAP you off the board if you don’t abide by them.
They will however despise you, ignore you and flame you until you either amend your ways or leave.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“Now if we could just find ourselves a Sergeant-at-Arms…”
I don’t know where the red font came from; I proofed that post to a fare-thee-well…
This is patently untrue. Part of the beauty of being appointed to the court for life is you are immune to the tides of public opinion. By way of example, the Court in the 1960s decided obscenity law and allowed the publication of certain books in periodicals in opposition to what the majority of people wanted. I doubt that the majority of people saw or approved of a Constitutional right to an abortion at the time Roe v. Wade was decided. And at a time when the public is nearly overwhelmingly in favor of Congressional term-limits, the courts have found them unconstitutional, at least at the Federal level.
Perhaps I exaggerated a little, but the fact remains that the court decisisions do reflect the general opinions of the American Public.
Would a Supreme Court today say “A black man has no rights which the United States government is bound to recognize,” as the majority opinion said in the Dred Scott Decision (1857)?
Would a Supreme Court have decided a constitutional right to abortion 100 years ago?
Would a Supreme Court have guaranteed the right to publication of “pornography” in 1800?
I bet not.
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.
Also I forgot to add that I’m not sure how true that statement is. I tried to find a recent “unbiased” opinion poll and couldn’t find anything.
I know at least that many congresspersons that ran on the term limits platform are now, of course, changing their mind and doing their best to get re-elected. Some of them having already been re-elected, I don’t imagine that the public abhorrence of multiple terms in Congress is as severe as all that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/termlimits/stories/term031599.htm
As far as the other two examples go (Roe vs. Wade, obscenity laws) I didn’t live in the US at the time and so don’t know what the public sentiment was in the US.
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.
You keep blathering and claiming it’s an ‘unfair’ challenge. There is nothing unfair about it. Go see a lawyer. Advise them that I will pay all expenses plus $10,000 to anyone who provides a successful challenge to any gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.
“Ohh, the Supreme Court is against me!” “Ohh, the Supreme Court only follows public opinion!”
Stop with the excuses and bullshit. The NRA has told you this a guaranteed personal right and I say that’s a load of crap. Why are there no takers, just talkers? Could it be that deep down you know it is just bullshit?
Time and again–JUST DO IT! TALK TO A LAWYER! Now, what is that going to hurt? The first consultation is free. Afraid what you will hear? I’ll tell you what you’ll hear; no way no how, get outta here, jack.
If you do find a lawyer willing to take your money, more power to you and less money to buy your sacred guns.
You can’t win this one and you know it, so why don’t you stop the wriggling and admit you haven’t the guts to even look into it.
jdv, I’m suddenly terribly, terribly interested in what other things in the Bill of Rights you consider to be “a load of crap” and feel we can just dispose with or ignore.
pldennison, it is not the second amendment both he and I are having trouble with. It’s the NRA’s interpretation of it, and the total unwillingness to approach the Supreme Court to settle the question once and for all. With all the screaming about second amendment rights from the NRA and similar groups, when it comes to supporting, via legal and financial aid, ONE case on second amendment grounds, the silence is deafening. Amazing, isn’t it, that one case can’t be foundto bring before the Court!
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson
JDV: your ridiculous challenge has been called out for the absurdity that it is by not only myself, but Big Iron, PLDennison, Jodih, MRM and Krish; I specifically and respectfully redirect your attention to Big Iron’s excellent civics lesson of Judicial Procedure, and encourage you to read thoroughly from the following cite:
http://comptonsv3.web.aol.com/ceo99-cgi/article?‘fastweb?getdoc+viewcomptons+A+7670+46++U.S.%20Constitution’
I would earnestly beg you to consider the following exerpt from that cite:
PatHunt is on your side of the debate and has basically agreed that your proposition is untenable.
I’m going to ask the board moderator to shut this thread down, as it has just turned into an “IS SO/IS NOT” flame war.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
I forgot to add:
After clicking on the link, scroll down to the “Supreme Court” link just before the text of The Constitution starts, and click it. The text I quoted comes from there.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>