|
-
 Originally Posted by Bob Denman
Thanks for the reference. Read the second paragraph:
The Second Amendment, one of the ten amendments to the Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights, states: “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.” The meaning of this sentence is not self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary but relatively few Supreme Court decisions.
2014 RTL Platinum
-
Nonetheless: you're still wrong.
Firearms ownership IS an individual right, and insulting conservative speakers and the Executive Vice-President of the NRA is absolutely rude.
Have we said anything about your Gun-Control advocates; that would be considered to be an insult? 
-
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
Nonetheless: you're still wrong. Firearms ownership IS an individual right, and insulting conservative speakers and the Executive Vice-President of the NRA is absolutely rude. Have we said anything about your Gun-Control advocates; that would be considered to be an insult?
Bob, you're trying to deflect my arguments by making it personal. That's politicizing the issue, which doesn't have to happen. I haven't insulted anyone and you know it. I have asked on what basis i.e. what authority you make your claims. The opinions of gun lobbyists and talking heads doesn't constitute authority.
Last edited by UtahPete; 10-23-2017 at 01:58 PM.
2014 RTL Platinum
-
You insulted Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Wayne LaPierre...
I find THAT to be insulting, and think you should delete that post.
I gave you a source for the final decision on this discussion...
I never said that anyone else was an expert: I just happen to agree with their views.
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
...And you're ignoring their explanation of it in the first paragraph...  Your highlighted sentence isn't applicable. Explaining the ambiguity, and meaning a dearth of decisions does nothing to change the fact that one of the relatively few decisions; is one that guarantees that it is an individual's right. 
Sorry, let me clarify. I never said it is not an individual's right to carry. NEVER SAID THAT.
What I've said, which is supported by the authority you quoted, is that the meaning of a "well-regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" within the context of the 2nd amendment has yet to be interpreted by the Supreme Court.
What does it mean to keep and bear arms? Is that to be interpreted narrowly or broadly? That's the issue. So let's not confuse it with specious arguments.
What does it mean by 'the people'? Everyone? If so, by what authority does the government take away that right from convicted felons, for instance?
Last edited by UtahPete; 10-23-2017 at 02:00 PM.
2014 RTL Platinum
-
I never said that you said that...
(CRAP! Now my head hurts!)
As regards the rest of your post: chew your own steak. The answers are out there for YOU to find!
-
Very Active Member
Hi Fatcycledaddy,
Re: why is it when . . .
It depends upon the state laws in which the incident occurred. In Oregon, a pregnant woman being killed does not result in a charge of double homicide. In some other states, it does.
Jerry Baumchen
'I'll never forget what's her name.'
'Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before.' Dwight Eisenhower
2008 GS SE-5
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
You insulted Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Wayne LaPierre...I find THAT to be insulting, and think you should delete that post. I gave you a source for the final decision on this discussion...I never said that anyone else was an expert: I just happen to agree with their views.
No, I didn't insult them Bob. Unless you consider my saying that their views (your views) don't constitute legal authority is an insult. You are using that excuse to deflect arguments that support views different from your own. I have to wonder why ...
Nonetheless, I will edit, but not remove, my offending post.
Last edited by UtahPete; 10-23-2017 at 02:00 PM.
2014 RTL Platinum
-
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them. Particularly Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff!  I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you?
Ah, now I understand. If I had demeaned his expertise in 'the field', that would not only be insulting, it would be ignorant. But, I didn't do that; what I said was that he does not constitute a legal authority (regardless of his expert opinions).
No, I've not met Mr. LaPierre. What does that have to do with anything? Actually, that's an interesting proposition; how about if we required that anyone expressing an opinion of a person or event have first-hand knowledge of them / it? Sure would make for fewer opinions.
Last edited by UtahPete; 10-23-2017 at 02:13 PM.
2014 RTL Platinum
-
Very Active Member
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them.
Particularly Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff!
I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you?
Bob I think you missed Pete's point.
If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.
By the way, I don't quote Rush, Sean, or Wayne ever so it wasn't an insult to me when he said that, if he thinks I sound like them I will take it as a compliment.
We have a little gem here in Michigan that you should check out. I had the privilege of meeting some of these people during a construction project for faculty housing. You should check out their free courses on the constitution.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/dashboard/courses
-
 I actually did catch that... I was trying to cut him some slack about it.
-
Originally Posted by Fatcycledaddy
Bob I think you missed Pete's point. If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.
Nope, never said that either. I guess it's easier to argue with my imputed statements rather than my actual ones. That's a favorite tactic of our politicians these days, so you're in good company I guess.
2014 RTL Platinum
-
2014 RTL Platinum
-
Originally Posted by Fatcycledaddy
Bob I think you missed Pete's point. If he doesn't agree with what they say, they can't be experts in the field.
By the way, what 'field' are we talking about here? Constitutional law?
2014 RTL Platinum
-
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
I am saying that by demeaning their expertise in the field (and it IS noteworthy!): you insult them. I will say that I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh very much: no time for radios...But if he were wrong on this topic: the anti-gunners would have already crucified him.  I do watch Sean Hannity, and I respect his level of informed opinions. But when it comes to Mr. LaPierre: he REALLY knows his stuff! I've met, and talked with him twice. Have you?
Bob, we all tend to 'like' those who help reinforce our opinions. No surprise there. And, that's fine as long as we recognize them as opinions or points of view and don't confuse them with facts. The fact is, the Supreme Court has never ruled on what the authors of the Constitution meant by such terms as 'well-regulated militia' 'the people' or their right to 'keep and bear arms'.
So, unless their 'expertise' is in constitutional law (and that I would feel compelled to dispute), their opinions are irrelevant to the discussion, wouldn't you agree?
2014 RTL Platinum
-
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
Just trying to keep things light and friendly... I never told you the story of my local Yamaha snowmobile dealership...I insured the owner's weekend place up on Tug Hill: it was right on the snowmobile trail system!  He invited us up there to ride with him... I asked him what his friends would think: I rode Polaris sleds. He said, "No problem: I'll just tell them that you're ignorant, and don't know any better!"
In the interest of keeping it light and friendly, I won't take offense at that!
2014 RTL Platinum
-
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
The HELL they didn't!  Their ruling in 2008 clearly says that they did. 
No, as explained in the second paragraph, the decision was a narrow one, in which they decided a state did not have the right to deny individuals their right to keep and bear arms. The author made it quite clear that the court has never ruled on an interpretation of the language of the second amendment. Thus, the debate continues.
2014 RTL Platinum
-
Originally Posted by Bob Denman
He was talking about me, and my choice of ride...  I would never suggest, that any other meaning needs to be attached to the conversation.
I realize that. But, if I was inclined to be reactionary I could take it a different way (which I don't).
2014 RTL Platinum
-
I guess the last post wins the argument. Hah!
2014 RTL Platinum
-
Very Active Member
2011 RTS (Sold to a very nice lady)
1998 Honda Valkyrie
2006 Mustang GT. Varooooom!
US Navy Veteran
SC Law Enforcement Boat Captain
CNC Machine Service Technician
President: Rolling Thunder SC1
Member: Disabled American Veterans, Rock Hill, SC
Member: American Legion
Experience is recognizing the same mistake every time you make it! 
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Reply With Quote
