Short and to the point: Obama the Liar

[MikeWaters]

I mean, if Obama said "I will be faithful to my marriage vows", the equivalent would be him #&$#ing dozens of women after marriage, while claiming 1) he is still faithful, and 2) not deceptive. Of course, to make the analogy complete, he would be have *(#$ing dozens of women before the marriage as well.

If you were paying attention to his record before the election, you would have known he was not a man to be trusted with your rights.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I disagree. I believe the Constitution guarantees those rights to all adult citizens with full citizen rights. Anybody else is not supportive my correct view of the Constitution. Hence, Obama is an anti-gun advocate.

You lost even Scalia on that argument, Arch. Weren't you just trying to appeal to popular opinion in forumulating your argument?

You act as if Obama has no legal foundation for his views. If anything, he is merely adopting the holding in Heller and applying it (note that Heller, authored by Scalia, specifically points out that "dangerous and unusual" guns, such as assault weapons (which he cites as a category which may legally be banned from prior Supreme Court precedent), are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

This isn't an exercise of just making the 2nd Amendment say whatever we want it to say. He has strong legal arguments in his camp. The approach you just outlined doesn't.

Again, cite one right that has no restriction whatsoever. If you can't, explain why this right is any different.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I already did. He is supporting the rights that that he believes are contained within the second amendment and supporting the restrictions that he believes are in accordance with the second amendment. Answer my question, please.

No, you didn't answer the question. I ask again:

He wants to limit the right to own weapons. How is that being pro-2nd Amendment?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You lost even Scalia on that argument, Arch. Weren't you just trying to appeal to popular opinion in forumulating your argument?

You act as if Obama has no legal foundation for his views. If anything, he is merely adopting the holding in Heller and applying it (note that Heller, authored by Scalia, specifically points out that "dangerous and unusual" guns, such as assault weapons (which he cites as a category which may legally be banned from prior Supreme Court precedent), are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

This isn't an exercise of just making the 2nd Amendment say whatever we want it to say. He has strong legal arguments in his camp. The approach you just outlined doesn't.

Again, cite one right that has no restriction whatsoever. If you can't, explain why this right is any different.

I understand your legalistic approach, but don't care to argue legal points of law, you are arguing in favor of the enabling constraint approach and familiar tactic of gun rights opponents. Heller or high water.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

No, you didn't answer the question. I ask again:

He wants to limit the right to own weapons. How is that beoing pro-2nd Amendment?

No, Il Pad, I did answer the question. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to hold any weapons we want to hold. You know it, and that is why you refuse to answer my question while pretending to be disappointed in my response. Do you have a right to own a rocket launcher? A nuclear weapon? A biological weapon? Why not? How about a tank, or mines? What about a flame thrower, or SAMs? Even you must recognize that some weapons are simply too dangerous for the public to hold. You don't agree that automatic weapons fall into that category, so you claim instead that everyone who thinks they do fall into that category hates the 2nd Amendment. That isn't even an argument. It is an attack.

The 2nd Amendment is a legal instrument. As such, it is subject to legal analysis. There is plenty of justification, under normal methods of legal interpretation, to suggest that automatic weapons aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. Read Heller, for crying out loud. Even the very conservative Scalia disagrees with your view of the amendment. Is he anti-gun?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You lost even Scalia on that argument, Arch. Weren't you just trying to appeal to popular opinion in forumulating your argument?

You act as if Obama has no legal foundation for his views. If anything, he is merely adopting the holding in Heller and applying it (note that Heller, authored by Scalia, specifically points out that "dangerous and unusual" guns, such as assault weapons (which he cites as a category which may legally be banned from prior Supreme Court precedent), are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

This isn't an exercise of just making the 2nd Amendment say whatever we want it to say. He has strong legal arguments in his camp. The approach you just outlined doesn't.

Again, cite one right that has no restriction whatsoever. If you can't, explain why this right is any different.

The AK-47 is dangerous and unusual?

The World Bank estimates that 75 million AK-47s are available worldwide, out of 100 million Kalashnikov family weapons and 500 million total firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47

It is certainly not "unusual." And being "dangerous" is the purpose of owning a gun. If I want something that isn't dangerous, I will buy non-toxic playdough. Or an apple. When I purchase a firearm, I want something that goes BANG when I pull the trigger, and doesn't go BANG when I DON'T pull the trigger.

You can't argue with sheep. They look at the history of the world and go "what could go wrong?"

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I understand your legalistic approach, but don't care to argue legal points of law, you are arguing in favor of the enabling constraint approach and familiar tactic of gun rights opponents. Heller or high water.

Ah. Got it. You want to have a debate about the legal meaning of a legal instrument that contains zero legal analysis. Makes sense.

I would like to discuss economics but only if we limit the discussion to our favorite food additives.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, Il Pad, I did answer the question. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to hold any weapons we want to hold. You know it, and that is why you refuse to answer my question while pretending to be disappointed in my response. Do you have a right to own a rocket launcher? A nuclear weapon? A biological weapon? Why not? How about a tank, or mines? What about a flame thrower, or SAMs? Even you must recognize that some weapons are simply too dangerous for the public to hold. You don't agree that automatic weapons fall into that category, so you claim instead that everyone who thinks they do fall into that category hates the 2nd Amendment. That isn't even an argument. It is an attack.

The 2nd Amendment is a legal instrument. As such, it is subject to legal analysis. There is plenty of justification, under normal methods of legal interpretation, to suggest that automatic weapons aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. Read Heller, for crying out loud. Even the very conservative Scalia disagrees with your view of the amendment. Is he anti-gun?

Cali, is it legal for me to buy and own a fully automatic gun?

Is it legal for me to buy and own a silencer?

I presume you do not know the answer to these questions.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The AK-47 is dangerous and unusual?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47

It is certainly not "unusual." And being "dangerous" is the purpose of owning a gun. If I want something that isn't dangerous, I will buy non-toxic playdough. Or an apple. When I purchase a firearm, I want something that goes BANG when I pull the trigger, and doesn't go BANG when I DON'T pull the trigger.

You can't argue with sheep. They look at the history of the world and go "what could go wrong?"

From a legal perspective, the answer is quite clearly yes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Cali, is it legal for me to buy and own a fully automatic gun?

Is it legal for me to buy and own a silencer?

I presume you do not know the answer to these questions.

Waters, you once again are out of your element here. Whether or not something may legally be purchased has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the 2nd Amendment gives us a right to own them. The 2nd Amendment is the floor, it is not the ceiling. If a weapon isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment, the government may regulate it or ban it or whatever else it wants. It may also permit it, if the legislature wants to. Stay on point.