21 January 2010

Thanks to Microdot

Yeah, the argument style of the teabagger/guncretin: simplify, use emotional language, and not think.

It distracts people from realising that you don't have an idea of what you are saying.

Case in point: MikeyW trying to show me that Justice Stevens' dissent support an "individual right"

Also, Justice Stevens dissenting opinion states in the very 1st sentence.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

#49 by Laci the Dog at January 20th, 2010

of course, you tell half truths and didn’t understand the dissent.

or didn’t read it.

Otherwise you wouldn’t misquote it.

“The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

” Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

It seems you’re wrong again, Mikey!

Next time try harder and actually read and understand what you quote.

Mikey then went on to say that Miller was all about the Shotgun. Wrongo Mikey. Mikey didn't really understand this from Miller:

OK, to use my post with the complete quotation and additional material from Stevens’ dissent in Heller, I’ve already shown that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Likewise, I will ask you what to tell me what was the holding in US v. Miller? It is actually quite surprising. (ed. The Holding was that the Court reversed the lower Court's decision that the Firearm WAS covered under the Second Amendment and remanded the case for reconsideration: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.")

I will actually give you some bits of dicta that prove you are wrong:

“Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.”

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Sounds pretty similar to what Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent.

Of course, Stevens' dissent supported an individual right, whatever that means.