Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2133742" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>I agree with Werewolf. I'll try to state the same idea more rigorously:</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think in most cases at the august level of the Supreme Court they <em><strong>can</strong></em>, but they <em><strong>will not.</strong></em> I think the reasonable mind must conclude that in most cases the Supreme Court justices are no more objective than any other human being in government. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that donning an antiquated black robe in any way improves the worth or power of one's reasoning. I believe the reasonable mind must conclude that in most cases the justices merely have a conclusion that they <em><strong>wish</strong></em> to reach, and thereafter cast about for any line of reasoning, valid or invalid, that supports their <em><strong>desired</strong></em> conclusion. The normal 5-to-4 majorities, split on liberal/conservative lines, would tend to support this observation.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, exactly! Now you have it. Think of the discussion surrounding Elena Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court claiming her qualification as "a wise Latina." What on earth does being "a wise Latina" have to do with one's ability to discern fine Constitutional distinctions?</p><p></p><p>I am continually gob-smacked at just how many putatively free citizens tell me they subordinate their own thinking to that of the courts and the legislatures! Just a couple of weeks ago my colleague in the cockpit, a former enlisted US Army Ranger, then a retired US Army warrant officer helicopter pilot, formerly of the highly prestigious 160th SOAR, spent a great deal of time and energy trying to convince me that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. His argument largely was predicated on court decisions, not on the text of the amendment itself. This he argued even in contravention of Miller by claiming, on grounds that the Founders could not predict such weapons, that the Second Amendment does <strong><em>not</em></strong> protect military arms such as fully automatic machine guns. When I forced the discussion to the text itself, he tried to make the usual specious argument in reverse of the actual text: that if one is <strong><em>not</em></strong> a member of a well regulated militia, then one <strong><em>does not</em></strong> have the right to keep and bear arms. Even though these two arguments are mutually exclusive, I was unable to convince him otherwise because, in my opinion, he <strong><em>wishes</em></strong> the text to read as he interprets it, and he will hear no argument to the contrary. As I find usual, he became visibly angry and broke off the argument.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately the reason our legislatures at every level pass patently unconstitutional laws, and our courts uphold patently unconstitutional laws, is that we the people permit it. We ourselves are the only guardians of our own rights and sovereignty. The deplorable state indoctrination of children and young adults that passes for education is in large part to blame, but that is another discussion entirely.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, technically, this is what the Supreme Court must do. It cannot hear a theoretical case. It cannot preemptively strike down a statute until a party affected by the statute brings a case before it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 2133742, member: 5183"] I agree with Werewolf. I'll try to state the same idea more rigorously: I think in most cases at the august level of the Supreme Court they [I][B]can[/B][/I], but they [I][B]will not.[/B][/I] I think the reasonable mind must conclude that in most cases the Supreme Court justices are no more objective than any other human being in government. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that donning an antiquated black robe in any way improves the worth or power of one's reasoning. I believe the reasonable mind must conclude that in most cases the justices merely have a conclusion that they [I][B]wish[/B][/I] to reach, and thereafter cast about for any line of reasoning, valid or invalid, that supports their [I][B]desired[/B][/I] conclusion. The normal 5-to-4 majorities, split on liberal/conservative lines, would tend to support this observation. Yes, exactly! Now you have it. Think of the discussion surrounding Elena Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court claiming her qualification as "a wise Latina." What on earth does being "a wise Latina" have to do with one's ability to discern fine Constitutional distinctions? I am continually gob-smacked at just how many putatively free citizens tell me they subordinate their own thinking to that of the courts and the legislatures! Just a couple of weeks ago my colleague in the cockpit, a former enlisted US Army Ranger, then a retired US Army warrant officer helicopter pilot, formerly of the highly prestigious 160th SOAR, spent a great deal of time and energy trying to convince me that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. His argument largely was predicated on court decisions, not on the text of the amendment itself. This he argued even in contravention of Miller by claiming, on grounds that the Founders could not predict such weapons, that the Second Amendment does [B][I]not[/I][/B] protect military arms such as fully automatic machine guns. When I forced the discussion to the text itself, he tried to make the usual specious argument in reverse of the actual text: that if one is [B][I]not[/I][/B] a member of a well regulated militia, then one [B][I]does not[/I][/B] have the right to keep and bear arms. Even though these two arguments are mutually exclusive, I was unable to convince him otherwise because, in my opinion, he [B][I]wishes[/I][/B] the text to read as he interprets it, and he will hear no argument to the contrary. As I find usual, he became visibly angry and broke off the argument. Ultimately the reason our legislatures at every level pass patently unconstitutional laws, and our courts uphold patently unconstitutional laws, is that we the people permit it. We ourselves are the only guardians of our own rights and sovereignty. The deplorable state indoctrination of children and young adults that passes for education is in large part to blame, but that is another discussion entirely. Well, technically, this is what the Supreme Court must do. It cannot hear a theoretical case. It cannot preemptively strike down a statute until a party affected by the statute brings a case before it. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom