Amicus Brief in support of the petitioners in D.C. v Heller
In SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT from the amicus brief nocal linked to HERE, in support of the petitioners in D.C. v Heller, a bunch of retarded dumbfuks (whose first language is likely to be English) said:
dumbmeeps: "On its face, the language of the Amendment tells us that the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The purpose of the Second Amendment, therefore, is to perpetuate "a well regulated Militia."
Interesting, considering the respect we are petitioned for in their authority the subject of sentence construction, that the disingenuous retards constructing the sentence above should dismiss by omission, without comment, without any consideration, the following:
On its face, the language of the Amendment tells us that one reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Considering the interest of the Federal Government to excercise the Constitutionally enumerated power to call upon State Militias in times of war, one purpose of the Second Amendment, therefore, is to perpetuate "a well regulated Militia."
The first thing to note is that my [English = 1st language] verion of their assertion has no conflict with the 9th Amendment reinforced notion that rights are not granted by governments through enumeration or otherwise--the meep's assertion suggests otherwise. Even if the fuktarded meep's conclusion is strictly valid, protecting the right to keep and bear arms for purposes other than participation in a State organized (or regulated) Militia is not--and, under the Constitution, CANNOT be--limited by this enumeration. Secondly, my version of their assertion imposes (through implication or otherwise) any restrictions on any other valid reason the Federal Government might express the specific recognition of a right through enumeration, yet it maintains an expression of purpose that is consistent with, and reflects the limited enumerated Power granted to the Federal Government that is the source for the interest in enumerating the right. The Federal Government is Constitutionally obligated to (effectively) provide for the common defense; it would be condradictory to obligation, and an impediment to the effective excercise of its supportive power to call upon State Militias, if the right is not protected. Hence, the interest in enumerating (NOT a granting of) the right, expressed within the Constitutional limitaions of Federal Powers. The authoritarian asshats refuse to aknowledge that there might be legitimate rights, and legitimate excercises of rights beyond those enumerated; and consistent with their bullmeep authoritarian paradigm, they deny that the Federal Powers are limited to those enumerated, despite the clear language in the Constitution that demands it.
Oh, and lest we all forget--"on its face"--the language of the Amendment tells us that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; because the security of a free state requires a well regulated militia, and a well regulated militia requires that the people's right to bear arms not be infringed upon.
dumbmeeps: "In the Second Amendment, the term [bear arms] is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service. The court of appeals, however, defined the words "bear" and "arms" separately, then reconstituted them into a new, a historical, expression meaning "the carrying of arms for private purposes such as self-defense [and hunting]." It did so based on instances in which the term "bear arms" was used with additional qualifying language, such as: "bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state," "bear arms for the defense of himself and the state," and, in one instance, "bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game."
Considering the purpose of the Amendment as expressly articulated by the absolute clause, the reference in the absolute clause to a "well regulated Militia," and the use in the second clause of the idiom "bear Arms," it is evident that the Framers drafted an Amendment in two symmetrical halves that, together, protect the right of the people to serve in a well regulated militia and keep arms for such service.
A point to remember: there is no evidence that suggests that the purpose these asshats demand is the sole and (for the purposes of violating individual rights) strictly limiting purpose for enumerating the right to keep and bear arms is maintaining a "well regulated [State] Militia." Additionally, the lack provisions for some powers and lack of provision for others in the Constitution is sufficient explanation for why no Federal interest was expressed where the Federal Government was not empowered to have an interest.
Again, stipulating that these retards have a valid point just to keep them in the game; in much the way later interpretations on what a "free press" was all about, and what "petition the Government for grievances" meant, later illuminated and established the intended protection for (without enumeration? Huh.) the right to "freedom of expression." Rights are not limited by the constraints from interference in rights placed on Government Powers. Is the "right to privacy" neccessarily non-existent because it was not specifically enumerated? No. Is the freedom to disseminate hand written criticms of the goverment to your neighbors unprotected because it was not specifically enumerated in 1798? Not any more than freedom of the press is Constitutionally limited to newspapers printed on hand operated presses. So guess what? Just because the Federal Government had no enumerated Power contingent upon every single valid private purpose for keeping and bearing arms, and had no enumerated Power regarding every single valid private purpose for keeping and bearing arms, expressing the Federal interest for the right to keep and bear arms within the scope of its enumerated Powers in NO WAY WHAT-SO-EVER limits the application of the term "uninfringed" to participants in a State Militia, or by any means excludes application of the tern from "the carrying of arms for private purposes such as self-defense [and hunting]."
Finally, these jackasses make a significant effort to bring attentention to the notion that there is evidence that "bear arms" was in fact used idiomatically to express individual possession of weapons outside of the context of participation in a military orgainzation, but dismiss the notion, based on the assertion that only "unadorned" usages expressed the true idiom, and the unadormed idiom necessarily excludes any intent to convey any meaning of "bear arms" inconsistent with participation in a military orgainzation. meeping bold!
After the "SUMMARY", these morons start to explain themselves in ARGUMENT I. THE SECOND AMENDMENT'S ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTION FUNCTIONS AS A SENTENCE MODIFIER. After explaing some vocabulary to impress those who simply use English, rather than deconstruct it to validate specious conclusions, they get to their linchpin point:
dumbmeeps: "Absolute constructions that show causation also can be identified through a test in which one tries to deny the causal connection without contradicting oneself (or at least not sounding foolish). For example, it is contradictory to say "The sun being up,it was warm; but the fact that the sun was up was not the reason it was warm." This contradiction does not occur when one tries to deny causation for an absolute construction that shows some other relationship to the main clause, such as an attendant cirmeepstance. Thus, this sentence is not contradictory: "Autumn leaves flying around them, the children rushed through the woods; but the fact that autumn leaves were flying around them is not the reason the children rushed through the woods."
The Second Amendment's absolute construction expresses the cause for the main clause's prohibition, as it is contradictory (and foolish sounding) to say, "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; but the fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State is not the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
One refutation of this assertion, consistent with the Constitutional context of the subject matter might read:
The Second Amendment's absolute construction expressed, within the context of the Constitution, the Federal interest in the main clause's prohibition, as it is consistent with the Constitutional obligations and limits on Federal Power (and not foolish sounding) to say, "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; but the fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State is not the sole reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed; nor does any lack of neccessity of a well regulated Militia invalidate that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Another might read this way:
The Second Amendment's absolute construction expresses the cause for the main clause's prohibition, as it is contradictory (and not foolish sounding) to say, "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; but the fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State is not the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed--it is only the Federal interest in the specific enumerating of a right already in possession by the people.
The bit that really illuminates the disingenuous nature of these retards, is that the test of contradiction that they submit, and then use to determine the validity of the causal relationship between the absolute construction and the main clause, actually demonstrates that the causal usage of the absolute construct is inappropriate--NOT that the plain meaning of main clause needs reconsideration for it to make sense. Committed to the assertion that the absolute construct is necessessarily causal to the main clause, they ignore the obvious fault in their commitement and blame the contradiction in their construction on some misunderstanding of what the main clause must "really" mean.
Both of the alternavives I offer better address the context of Amendment, and better follow their deconstruction to its proper conclusion. What these fuktards are actually selling, and the nocals of this planet buy like McDonald's Hamburgers, is this:what the dumbmeeps are attempting to sell:"The Second Amendment's absolute construction expresses the cause for the main clause's prohibition, as it is contradictory (and foolish sounding) to say, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State is the only possible cause for the existence of the people's right to keep and bear arms, and is the only possible reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed; but the fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State is not the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.""You see, the stament that suggests what they are selling isn't actually as foolish as what they are selling; the former just leads to a non-sequitur, whereas the latter actually asserts the contradiction they need to properly validate their point.
These idiots obtusely press hard for the absolute construction in the 2nd to expresses a "causal relationship" despite having pointed out that "[a]bsolute constructions also can establish relationships other than causation." You know, such as the relationship between the unabridgable, or uninfringable rights of the people, and the Constitutionally limited powers of the Government. Or better than that, the relationship between the recognizing and protecting rights of the people, and the facility of the Government to meet its Constutional obligations within the Constitutionally limited Powers granted.
The fact that these assholes are intellectually dishonest is revealed in their sanctimonious attempt to refute a counter argument by some Professor Lund, by insistently ignoring any possible relationship that the "absolute construct" can express except the "causal relationship", and then fatuously demand--all other valid options ignored--that "The Second Amendment's absolute construction was adopted as an integral part of the Amendment, and it cannot be "omitted" or wished away by trying to show that it no longer is true."
Lolsome. BRAVO!!!!!! ::golfclap72x::
Ok. When you thought the retarded could not possibly get more retarded: ARGUMENT II. THE AMENDMENT'S UNMISTAKABLY MILITARY LANGUAGE PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO SERVE IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA AND KEEP ARMS FOR SUCH SERVICE. The retards begin their case--laughingly--thus:dumbmeeps:"The "well regulated Militia" clause sets forth the cause-and-effect relationship between the Amendment's two halves: Because X is necessary, Y shall not be infringed. "Seriously? A toddler, for whom English is their 5th lanuage, limited to expressions related to Saturday morning cereal consumption propaganda, could expose this logical absurdity. "Because irrigation is neccessary for agrigulture, the right to have hoses shall not be infringed" means that the only valid purpose for having a hose under any cirmeepstances, and only valid purpose for protecting that right, is agricultural purposes, and in particular: irrigation."
Absolutely as dumb as dumbmeep can get.
The form "Because X is necessary, Y shall not be infringed" =/= "Y shall not be infringed only if X is necessary." The argument they submit here serves to establish the existence of the neccessary X, to be conditioned upon an uninfringed Y; not the contingency of Y upon the existence of X. The neccessity of X has no bearing on this relationship except to lend greater imperative to the dependence of X upon Y. Hence, in the case of the 2nd, the neccessity of a well regulated militia for the security of a free State, has no effect that infringes upon the right.
dumbmeeps:"Because we need a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is obvious from the way the Amendment is structured that Y is key to the existence of X. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to preserve or perpetuate "a well regulated Militia.""
How about this instead: Because the existence of a well regulated militia requires the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is obvious from the way the Amendment is structured that Y is key to the existence of X. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to preserve or perpetuate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Seriously, remember that part where they were all concerned over some foolish contradiction? How about the contradiction within the assertion that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be limited to those arms issued by the public armory for use during State Organized Militia functions only, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I can't believe these assholes sport Ph.Ds, and have the meep to teach any kind of English. What kind of English scholar insists that some modifier attached to the main clause is the subject of the statement rather than the main-meeping-clause? I'll tell you: One that wishes to deny the unambiguous meaning of the main clause.
Then, after a long list of examples where "bear arms" was an idiom intentionally implemented to convey activity of a patently military nature, these asshats offer this conclusion as validation that the 2nd Amendment can in no way be about the individual, private keeping and bearing of arms:dumbmeeps: "The only reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.""As if the uninfringed right to private keeping and bearing of arms is in any manner inconsistent with serving as a [guerilla] soldier in a revolutionary army, to do military service in a State Organized Militia, or to fight [as a private citizen] in the theater of war against the organized members of a hostile force.
It is worth reminding you that the Federal Government was given no powers over personal self-defense or killing game, but there was the issue of providing for the coomon defense, by (among other means) calling upon the State Militias. And furthermore, there is the possible issue of Federal undermining of the ability of a State to organize a well regulated Militia through a Federal prohibition on the private possion of (military) arms. In either case, the broad use of the idiom is fully consistent with Militia uses without making the right to keep and bear arms a privilege reserved to militiamen. The retarded restricted usage of the idiom denies the notion of a right, right here in the Bill Of Rights. The retarded restricted usage of the idiom is all the more offensive as it suggests that the Powers of government are not limited by rights, and that rights are somehow constrained by the Consitution.
But that is all beside the point of them being wrong about how that idiom was used. Actually, both the use of the idiom, and the term "idiom." Just because the military community was absolutely consistent in it's use of "bear arms" while discussing military action, it does not follow that all users must, without exception, modify the idiom when discussing the possession and use of weapons by persons engaged in non-military activities. When individuals used arms against a King or a King's soldier(s) that person--even if not part of a military organization--was considered to be "bearing arms."
dumbmeeps: "The court of appeals read the two halves of the Second Amendment so that they became asymmetrical. It began with the term "bear Arms" in the second clause, which it construed (contrary to its idiomatic usage at the time) [LOki: Except for those instances they cited where someone of the time used the term in argument, idiomatically, just the way the court construed.] to provide for a right to own and use guns for private purposes, including personal self-defense and hunting."So what? Symmetry is irrelevant, particularly since it is clear that the Founders consisdered governmental powers to be subject to, not the subject of the people's rights.
dumbmeeps: "There is, of course, a much more natural reading of the Amendment, one that avoids the imbalance created by the court's construction and avoids rendering the first clause (or a critical portion of it) superfluous. By simply (i) giving the idiom "bear Arms" the meaning it had at the time (to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight), (ii) reading the term "well regulated Militia" as it was used at the time (to refer to a militia that not only is subject to regulation under the militia laws, but also well functioning and disciplined), and (iii) looking to the absolute clause's statement of causation (the right to "bear Arms" is protected to perpetuate "a well regulated Militia") to determine the scope of military service covered by the right (that which is in a well regulated Militia), one finds a balanced text that protects the right of the people to serve in a well regulated militia and keep arms for such service."
At this point, I am really interested to see if the same nocal will show up, who when confronted by the comically complex and convoluted rationalizations of a 911Truther, asked why, if the Governemnt was really interested in the public believing terrorists flew a plane into the Pentagon, why would they launch a missile and make up this story when it is well within their capabilities, easier, and far more effective to simply fly a plane into the Pentagon and blame it on terrorists?
Will that same nocal ask, "If the authors of the 2nd Amendment intended to enumerate and declare uninfringable, some right of the States to maintain well regulated Militias for the peole to serve in, then why did they couch it terms of the people's right to keep and bear arms, rather than declare that the right of the States to maintain well armed and regualted Militias shall not be infringed?
I fail to see what is so unnatural about reading "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . ." as a declaration, asserted within the Constitutional context and limitations of Federal powers, of the Federal interest in recognizing by enumeration of a particular right that the people possess. I fail to see how such a reading makes the clause superfluous. I think that even nocal will agree that if the point is to determine which reading is most natural, and does not make an actually critical clause (such as, THE MAIN CLAUSE) superfluous, then any reading that denies that ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means anything other than what is clearly appears to mean, fails this test.
Oh, and nocal? That blog you linked to? The Republic of T, Black. meep. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal. RETARD.
Hey, anonymous person! Log in and comment.
BeachGoat
spankerchi+
Crapalicio+
linkswarm
queue: New link: Mao Sugiyama Cooks, Serves Own Genitals At Banquet In Tokyo
BigDinWaun+
fastlane fosters a pen-pal/lover relationship with a terrorist who blew up herself just yesterday - unlucky
BigDinWaun+
fastlane tries out his first gloryhole - blown by disease ridden mule that likes to snap carrots in half - very unlucky
sunny77
on MIT's Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing: it seems as though+
graycube
on MIT's Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing: I mean after all+
graycube
on MIT's Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing: Why are they wearing+
fastlane
And how could I forget Pepper as she attempts to scare a wild animal. Honey badger doesn't give a meep.~ unlucky
fastlane
Sunny goes to baby a shower. Drowns.~ unlucky
fastlane
Dragonstaff wears a buIIetproof vest. Shot in the face. ~ unlucky
fastlane
BigD meeps the meep out of a girl. Literally.~ unlucky
fastlane
BeachGoat bends over to pick up hot girI's dropped books. meeps. ~ unlucky
fastlane
M_A_M means to write "kk" to black friend on Facebook chat. Adds extra k. ~ unlucky
fastlane
MstrLance finally goes to summer camp. Auschwitz. ~ Unlucky
fastlane
Spanky goes to snort a line of coke. Sneezes. ~ unlucky
fastlane
Post watermelon head post haste.
fastlane
Spanky volunteers to help inner city kids, shot in drive by. ~ unlucky
BeachGoat
Happy Day to Ya, Long May Ye Wave It
BeachGoat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ShbuhpRlo&feature=youtu.be
spankerchi+
on Spanky's Pic Place: Okay here's a+
spankerchi+
on Spanky's Pic Place: I SWEAR I was+
dragonstaf+
MstrLance
Happy Birthday, Spanky! You're in your prime for the 13th time.
MstrLance
I bet it's well manicured.
middle_age+
Try to picture Joan River's meep during the exam. It'll save some embarassment.
BigDinWaun+
spanky... You Goshdarn two-faced Gemini!
middle_age+
Don't kid yourself, you'll cry yourself to sleep after the next physical. Happy birthday you middle aged meepgot.
dragonstaf+
Happy birthday. Post pic for photoshopping.
sunny77
today on linkswarm, spanky unsuccessfully attempts to change the subject
spankerchi+
Or: Nine years before getting the pickle jar treatment.
spankerchi+
Change of topic; I'm 41 today.
spankerchi+
Ummm...
sunny77
:|
sunny77
:
middle_age+
The doc went at me like he was trying to get the last pickle out of the jar.
StartRecor+
Pepper
Home Sweet meeping Home! Ahhhh...
nurglets
on Camphone Thread: img20120525114046qK5th.jpg
BeachGoat
Tell the GrandMonkey, "He's Dancing with the Tree!"
BeachGoat
There is a 400lb Senegalese Tortoise down the street who has a tree stump for a girlfriend.
BigDinWaun+
My pet Gerbil is dry meep a mound of cedar bedding? What gives?
BigDinWaun+
One of those old Republican Women's Cookbooks or French Gastronomy in Africa?
BigDinWaun+
I'm trying to fashion a rattle and pacifier out of chicken gibblets... does anyone have any references for this... one of those old Republican Women
linkswarm
queue: New link: security forces in Mexico have raided a workshop making fake Mexican military uniforms and body armour.
BeachGoat
"It's a Boy!"
BeachGoat
http://upload.linkswarm.com/i/beachgoat/pullingporkLSg.jpg
spankerchi+
Let the baby roast rest for an hour, then have your guests help pull the meat. Everyone will have fond memories of the event to cherish FOREVER!
spankerchi+
Just remember to give yourself plenty of time for cooking (a field-dressed baby can weigh upwards of 30 lbs and take a FULL DAY to cook!)
spankerchi+
I prefer free range, breast fed toddler as there's more dense muscle mass.
linkswarm
queue: New link: Bachmann's political mentor.
BigDinWaun+
Do you keep them penned up like veal and infuse them with formula or mother's milk? I hear formula fed babies have a medicinal taste. I don't want that for the party.... I would be a terrible host.
spankerchi+
No need to leave the skin on. A toddler's got a lot of good marbling.
spankerchi+
I'd go dry rub and smoke it like a picnic meep.
BeachGoat
HOME!...That is all
BigDinWaun+
Can anyone recommend a Masala that flavors flesh?
sunny77
however much is in a can of coconut cream
pete56
MstrLance
Trans-fat or poly-unsaturated?
BigDinWaun+
How many fat calories in a small, American toddler?
godevilliv+
MstrLance
MIT's new coating should help with that.
graycube
hoyaguru
clipswarmed MstrLance's Dogs Shot by Police
BeachGoat
on Michael McKean (somewhat famous Linkswarmer) found naked in tragic meep car accident: Well, even with a+
StartRecor+
on Michael McKean (somewhat famous Linkswarmer) found naked in tragic meep car accident: i think he might+
BigDinWaun+
on Michael McKean (somewhat famous Linkswarmer) found naked in tragic meep car accident: He could just be+
linkswarm
queue: New link: MIT's Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
dragonstaf+
Ahh. One of those.
dragonstaf+
Not to my knowledge. Details please.
spankerchi+
That's when you take a really greasy meep and before the meep hits the water it grabs onto your meep hair and swings from tuft to tuft around your a##hole.
dragonstaf+
on Michael McKean (somewhat famous Linkswarmer) found naked in tragic meep car accident: The real question is+
spankerchi+
Speaking of hair removal products; Have you ever taken a Tarzan Sh#t?
spankerchi+
Ugh...too much barbecue pork.
-
beachgoat
-
pete56
-
beachgoat
-
nurglets
-
sunny77
-
spankerchi+
-
spankerchi+
-
dragonstaf+
-
beachgoat
-
mstrlance
-
spankerchi+
-
beachgoat
-
beachgoat
-
lordkahuna
-
lordkahuna
-
lordkahuna
-
pete56
-
beachgoat
-
beachgoat
-
beachgoat
-
beachgoat
-
johnlenin
-
beachgoat
-
beachgoat
-
godevilliv+
Aug10 '10
posts
25.2k rads
25205 rads
#
tl;dr. Can I get a summary?
Aug10 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
the 2nd amendment is written in such a way that, well...just meeping look at it:
loki pretends that this is written clearly, and like most assholes, will call you stupid if you disagree.
here is a sentence diagram that shows just how badly it's written.
my point, originally, was not that the 2nd amendment doesn't confer the right to bear arms. rather, my point was that even smart people disagree on the meaning of the clause as written. loki pretends that there is no such debate.
see his post for more of such bullmeep (english is my first language! you are all retards! only i know the intent of long dead white slave owners when it comes to automatic weapons!)
let me also call attention to the fact that loki wrote the following: I am not a proponent of the right for dangerous felons to possess weapons of any nature. The same goes for those who are demonstrably incompetent for emotional, psychological, itellectual or developmental reasons. I don't see this as inconsistent with the 2nd, provided we apply due process and refrain from declaring out-of-hand broad classes of people (e.g. Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Democrats, etc....) incompetent for emotional, psychological, itellectual or developmental reasons.
LOL
Aug10 '10
posts
46.9k rads
46882 rads
#
Aug11 '10
posts
25.2k rads
25205 rads
#
I think some of those commas were typos.
Aug11 '10
posts
25.2k rads
25205 rads
#
Let's vote on whether we think they're typos or not. All in favor?
Aug11 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
1) there were no typos in the constitution; the founding fathers and their words were always perfect and unassailable
2) there were no typewriters back then 2a) quillos?
Aug11 '10
posts
0 rads
0 rads
#
there's a lot more confusing lines in the constitution, like this one
Aug11 '10
posts
15.5k rads
15532 rads
#
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
This is from Articel I, 9, Clause 4. There is evidence that at the time of passage many of the framers did not understand it. In Madison's notes (the only transcript of the debates) a Delegate rises and inquires as to what the clause means. A delegates rises to answer that he does not know... That is all history knows about the debate regarding this clause... Don't give them too much credit.
Aug11 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
and then a libertarian rose and said unto them, "u fukken retard, is english your first language??"
Aug11 '10
posts
46.9k rads
46882 rads
#
Aug11 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
Of course, you misrepresent again. There is no disagreement among intellectually honest smart people regarding the meaning of the clause as written.
Explain the source of your "LOL." I am certain you think you have discovered some inconsistency in my position, and I would like you to explain your perception so I can LOL at you.
On 2010-08-11 at 10:15:03, LOki asked to smell your meep
Aug11 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
there is no disagreement? OH I GET IT, amongst "intellectually honest" people. people that YOU define as "intellectually honest."
people like you.
who would take guns away from select people, despite the fact that that right "shall not be infringed."
Aug11 '10
posts
46.9k rads
46882 rads
#
Aug11 '10
posts
13.2k rads
13246 rads
#
Wow, a meeping collection of Constitutional Scholars. For pure curiosities sake, who here is
A. A lawyer B. A constitutional scholar
?
This is a serious ?, as I'm trying to gauge competency.
Aug11 '10
posts
46.9k rads
46882 rads
#
What exactly are your competency gauging credentials?
Aug11 '10
posts
13.2k rads
13246 rads
#
My own and quite irrelevent to you.
Aug11 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
is this a serious question, or is it a rhetorical question?
how about you say what you mean and stop being such a meep.
Aug11 '10
posts
13.2k rads
13246 rads
#
Serious. Just answer the question, if applicable, you festering meep.
Aug11 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
Can't muster a valid remeepal at all, can you?
Aug11 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
Aug11 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
These three Ph.Ds, offer a conclusion that the 2nd amendment in no way expresses in any manner that the people possess a right to keep and bear arms, let alone that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This conclusion is primarily based on two obviously faulty assertions: a) The prefatory clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . ." necessarily asserts the cause for the existence of, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." b) The main clause, where (well established among those whose 1st language is English) the crux of the biscuit resides, is not the crux of the biscuit all! Rather, it's the right to belong to a State organized Militias.
The best part is that for case a), the three Ph.Ds provide a test to confirm the validity of the causal nature of "A well regulated militia ..." in the 2nd, only to conclude--after the clause FAILS the test for being causal--that the main clause as written must mean something different, because the prefatory clause is necessarily asserts a cause. Lolsome.
So, based on their stoic embrace of their faulty first assertion, the trundle out the notion that the main clause, which clearly asserts that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall no be infringed." means nothing of the sort. Rather, they claim, it means something like, "The right of the people to join State militias, and fight in a strictly military manner, shall not be infringed."
But don't believe me. According to nocal, all I basically said was "they're just retards."
Not that I'm advocating that you take my word for it, but having wrote it, my summary is likely to be true to the work--unlike anyone here who is likely to cavalierly dismiss without commentary beyond "Oh, since I'm a liberal, and you think I am wrong, you must think I'm wrong because I'm a liberal; that makes you a conservative, thus by definition so wrong that I don't have to bother with finding out exactly where I was found to be wrong. Gunmeeps call everyone who disagrees with them "retards." meep off Bu$h-luvr-nazi!"
Aug12 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
if you're going to pretend you can't see the things i write, then i don't see why i should bother.
Aug12 '10
posts
1788 rads
1788 rads
#
"There is no disagreement among intellectually honest smart people regarding the meaning of the clause as written." -Loki
Translate: only dumb dishonest people disagree with loki on the second amendment(or anything probably).
This is an ad hominem attack... which is a logic fail and the crux of nocal's argument.
Believe it or not there are plenty of smart intellectually honest people that would disagree with the clause as written. A lot of these people are more educated then even the mighty constitutional scholar loki. Guess what... people disagree with other people. That doesn't make them intellectually dishonest or dumb. There are a lot of things that are open to interpretation... the second half of the second amendment is one of them.
There are also a lot of smart people who believe a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
The point is that truth is relative. Get over yourself meep.
Aug12 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
I am far more entitled to direct this at you; than you are, to me.
Considering that I take the time to quote your points, and make the effort to address them directly, I fail to see the basis upon which you assert that I . . . pretend I can't see the things you write, . . . except to pretend that you ". . . don't see why you should bother . . . in an effort to disguise that you can't muster a valid remeepal at all.
I suppose perhaps you could be referring to this:
Which I took to be a rhetorical non-sequitur considering it's lack of substance. But if this rare instance of my failure to a dissect your assertions line-by-line is basis of your broad accusation, and the unnegotiable obstacle preventing you from submitting a valid, intellectually honest remeepal to my argument, then let me address them now in the idiom you have come to expect, so that you are no longer restrained from granting my reasonable request.Ahem.
I am not the source of any such definition and have never made any such claim, so this accusation is baseless. I will, however, submit one for your evaluation; if you find it disagreeable I'm certain that one that satisfies us both can be arrived at.Although I crafted that off-hand (try to excuse it's clumsiness), I feel certain that it's substantially consistent with notions of intellectual honesty defined and applied most everywhere.
If the people you are talking about are objectively, and unequivically intellectually honest, I would rather like to hope that I am like them.
In any case; I don't require anyone to be like me--but after considering the evidence at hand, I'll just settle for people being not like you.
Ok, that's a little too unfair . . .
I accept that fair must take as fair gives, while I giggle over the number of times I fit "retard" into a response to you. While I find too much potential entertainment value in your apparent inability to be critical of your own argument to let it go ever, you haven't struck me as one who is unable to be critical of anyone else's argument.
Perhaps, I extent too much credit to you. Now I wonder how you think I should characterize this sudden inability of yours to parse and find criticism for the patently fatuous assertions of these three asshats--or better, to put together a substantive remeepal to my conclusions.
The ad-hominem attacks are . . . well, kind of desperate, grasping and weak. You should know nocal, that this is serious. I expect lameness when I troll nevarforgeteagletears.com forums for "troochristian-notleftyobammunist-nation" American rights defending (from construction plastic bunkers) hypocrits, but not here. And the ad-hominem argument implied by them--that's the strategy, right?--is invalid, as you well know. I will explain it later to Gethot.
Correct. And now let's again test your product to see if it possesses valuable substance, or if it's just more meep-water: Explain the source of your "LOL." I am certain you think you have discovered some inconsistency in my position, and I would like you to explain your perception so I can LOL at you.
Aug12 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
If I were you, I would be careful regarding my characterizations of other peoples arguments. I don't know if you're right about nocal's argument; but if you are, then you are both wrong.
An ad-hominem attack is not "logic fail." An applicable conclusion that logically follows from evidence, and also happens to be an unflattering characterization of an individual, is logically VALID. Look it up.
The translation you provided for my argument is an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem argument is "logic fail." An ad-hominem argument begins with an unflattering characterization as the premise for the conclusion(s) following it.
Many retards, so over-busy patrolling the borders of their well deservedly busted self-esteems, fail to parse the distinction. ;)
I am not one of them. Since I did not claim the intellectually dishonest retards were wrong (or dishonest) because they are retards, I did not engage in an ad-hominem argument. Sorry about your luck.
Are they honestly disagreeing? Is the basis of their disagreement intellectually valid? Are you earnestly and sincerely making this evaluation? Because I'll admit that I engage in a certain flavor of dishonest argument when fishing for better arguments for a position I am sincere about, than those I have. It's part of the reason I'm more tolerant of the practice on an internet forum, than I am when I see it going on in the Supreme Court.
But then the motive of my effort is not to obfuscate the objective validity of a point, but rather to acquire more potent tools to defend it.
Such is not the case for three assholes, who should probably know better, that submit an amicus brief to the supreme court denying the existence of a right that is clearly identified. My irritation is really not about them making an argument from the position opposite mine--it's about how three Ph.Ds can sincerely submit such obviously faulty arguments, demand their validity, and expect then to be considered honest and intelligent.
And to demonstrate the integrity of my intellectual honesty, I'll give to you explicitly (having offered it in passing, but no one bit) the conclusion of an opposing argument to the individual right to keep and bear arms that is difficult to refute: Look into "the People" [capitalization may count] as a "term of art" that means "the State" such that the [plainly obvious, and unambiguously asserted] right to keep and bear arms in question, is collectively rather than individually possessed.
But you'll note that where the three retards I discussed pretended to a similar disclosure--rather than admit that the test of their argument refuted their argument, they demanded instead that they were right anyway, and that "...the people's right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" MUST be wrong.
What could be greater evidence of being an intellectually dishonest retard than to demand that where the test that invalidates the claim that the prefatory clause is causal is valid, but despite being invalidated by the test, the causal nature of the prefatory clause remains valid; hence, the main clause must be wrong.
Tell me, have I missed out on some new understanding of the terms "honest" or "retard?"I find it hilarious that I'm the one being characterized as being blinded by irrational presumptions.
Well thanks! Setting aside an industrious self-awareness intentionally keyed to satisfy my desire for a objective and honest understanding of reality, I consider myself to be a rather mediocre retard; Mighty Constitutional Scholar is appealing and flattering, but modesty prevents me from accepting.
Before we forget that you brought in the whole ad-hominem business, you should be aware that while the invalid ad-hominem argument fails to invalidate an argument, it also fails to validate one--so who gives a meep if some people are more educated I am (or anyone else). Christ! GW Bush was educated at, and graduated from, Harvard Business School. Tell me about his authority on any subject--particularly the subject of his major.
I am aware of this, and I have said as much, and have given you no reason to presume so much. But let me say this much: if you sincerely agreed with GWB on the means for successfully running an oil company--most particularly after he tanked it--then I'd say I have fairly valid evidence to back characterizing you as intellectually dishonest, dumb, or both.
Disagree?
This much is true, but [to cover all of the applicable bases] you're an intellectually dishonest retard if you demand that every interpretation (of any statement, not just the 2nd) has equally valid merit, hence the intellectual substance and motives of all those asserting these interpretations are immune from being found dishonest or retarded.
Look, I'm game here. Do me a solid and demonstrate your point; provide an honest, intellectually consistent and valid interpretation (it does not have to be yours) of the second half of the second amendment that,
a) ... denies that keeping and bearing arms is a right, b) ... denies that keeping and bearing means having possession of, c) ... denies that "arms" means weapons, d) ... denies that (any, some, individual, all, whatever) actual people possess the right , e) ... denies the prohibition on upon infringing upon the right.
And to be clear, I'm no more interested that you might think that there is no such thing as the right to keep and bear arms--any more than you are really interested that I think there is--this is about what the second half of the second amendment, and I am specifically asking for what you appear to be asserting; and that is that there is some internally consistent, intellectually valid and honest interpretation of, "...,the people's right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that,
a) ... denies that keeping and bearing arms is a right, b) ... denies that keeping and bearing means having possession of, c) ... denies that "arms" means weapons, d) ... denies that (any, some, individual, all, whatever) actual people possess the right , e) ... denies the prohibition on upon infringing upon the right.
Can you do this?
This may be entirely true, but I think that the distinction to be made is that I (and for nocal's benefit--those like me) would like to validly claim to have (or earnestly seek to have) the integrity of intellectual honesty that can fearlessly (but not proudly) admit to the objective, and rational invalidity of my superstitions; and to not compound dishonesty by rationalizing the forcing of my superstitions upon others (directly or by proxy), as if my superstitions had objective, and rational validity . . . are these Jewish Zombie believers cut from the same cloth?
Only if you refuse to let evidence and valid logic get in your way. Then "truth" only means that you are fully content with your own koolaid--that what you say and believe are mutually consistent. If otherwise, truth (even if perfect certainty in truth is not achieved) is absolute. Go meep yourself, you self-righteously content retard.
Aug12 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
B -- I was just awarded an MCS from Gethot, but declined to accept.
For pure curiosities sake, how do you gauge competency knowing that there are incompetent lawyers, and incompetent constitutional scholars out there, but none/few that will identify themselves as such? And if your gauge accounts for those incompetencies, then why is it necessary to apply the condition(s) of being a lawyer and/or constitutional scholar?
This is a serious ?, as I'm trying to gauge the validity of your gauge.
Aug13 '10
posts
11.9k rads
11914 rads
#
Prof. Sanford Levinson, University of Texas wrote this:
"The majority opinion in Dred Scott, at the same time both horrible and significant, is key to understanding how the Second Amendment was interpreted prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. In his opinion, Justice Taney suggests that blacks could not be citizens because citizenship matters and comes with certain rights, one of which is the right to keep and carry arms. In the context of this decision, it makes no sense to interpret the right to carry arms in a strictly military sense. It more closely aligns with the rights of individuals. Taney was not an outlier in this interpretation. The Republican platform of 1856 referred to the protection of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, without mention of the militia. Further, the Democratic Party's 1864 platform called for the end of the interference with the right of the people to bear arms in their defense. As always, the gun debate was robust. "
It sums up my historical perspective of the debate
Aug13 '10
posts
13.2k rads
13246 rads
#
You remind me of a plumber that used to come into our shop with a stack of Biochemistry books. His take on this whole edumacation thing was that he could do it himself with little regard for the actual rigeur required to actually be a biochemist. Just because one can read the constitution, logic books, or can string sentences together does not make oneself a qualified consitutional expert. The fact that there may be some mickey mouse constitutional experts, which you obviously know so please provide names and proof, then that must mean that everyone can be a constitutional scholar.
You are just a man with some time and interest in a particular subject. Perhaps you would fare well against a true scholar, but then you don't even know what you don't know about actually being a trained scholar. Another American who thinks they know, but are horribly underqualified. Now, if you actually were a constitutional scholar from a respectable school that put you through years of rigorous training, then I would actually read your words. Instead, you are some wanna-be who happens to string words together in a nice manner. For that attribute, which you have some expertise, I commend you. Would I consider you an expert writer, probably not, but a pretty good pro-am.
In the end, I admire your passion for the subject and have little interest in its outcome either way.
Aug13 '10
posts
13.2k rads
13246 rads
#
This is meeping perfect....
[url] http://wonkette.com/417336/cnn-polls-nations-top-constitutional-scholars-the-general-public-about-important-constitution-issues[/url]
Aug13 '10
posts
46.9k rads
46882 rads
#
Dude, seriously, figure out how to post a clicky correctly.
Aug13 '10
posts
13.2k rads
13246 rads
#
meep that meep. My clicky works just as well as your stunted clicky. Nuttin wrong wit be verbose.
Aug13 '10
posts
0 rads
0 rads
#
English: not loki's first language
Aug13 '10
posts
46.9k rads
46882 rads
#
Stay thirsty my friend.
Aug18 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
No?
Aug19 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
what a stupid rhetorical device.
Aug19 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
Explain?
Aug20 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
i swear to christ
there is no point in ever explaining anything to you at any point.
it is not possible that you do not understand what i said already, because it is obvious even to the stupidest of people, but i will elaborate:
you define parameters under which you accept an argument as "honest and intellectually consistent," which allows you to arbitrarily reject any argument.
it's cowardly and makes reasonable people question the (few) reasonable things you might say.
Aug20 '10
posts
25.3k rads
25296 rads
#
Aug20 '10
posts
13.2k rads
13246 rads
#
Wouldn't it be ironic if Loki wound up dying of a gunshot wound and Nocal pulled the trigger?
Aug20 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
Really? Explain.
Because it occurs to me that this:
Is the actual basis upon which one may "arbitrarily reject any argument."It's the basis upon which one might interpret "the right of the people" to mean "the privilege of landed white men" or "the privilege of influential campaign contributors" or "the privilege of the State Organized Militia."
All of which require some application of deliberate dis-information.
So seriously, explain how my request for an internally consistent, intellectually valid and honest interpretation allows for an "arbitrary" rejection of an argument.
On 2010-08-20 at 15:17:02, LOki asked to smell your meep
Aug20 '10
posts
46.9k rads
46882 rads
#
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/H-zbkos8GxA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&hd=1
Aug20 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
I won't refute that argument.
Aug20 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
according to loki, a lot of perjury going on
people who went to law school, served as judges, were so brilliant that they made it to the supreme court, and disagree with loki on this point are "liars." or maybe just mentally retarded.
anyone who can't answer this on their own is literally not worth my time.
Aug20 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
you know, literally because i think there are smart people on both sides of the debate who are honestly debating the subject, loki has called me a retard.
yet somehow i am able to write a sentence better than his precious founding fathers; one that unambiguously guarantees the right of the people to bear arms.
the original, written-loki-style version:
the nocal-is-smarter-than-jefferson version:
since i've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that my clause is objectively better (according to Strunk & White), i would like a formal written apology from loki. preferably one without comma splices.
you meepgot.
Aug21 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
On 2010-08-21 at 12:53:48, LOki asked to smell your meep
Aug21 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
This is not actually the case. I say that on one side of the issue at hand are those who accept the meaning of the 2nd amendment as it was written, and there are those who do not.
I have not discussed the retardedness or dishonesty of those who accept the meaning of the 2nd amendment as it was written; I will gladly, and am fully game do this (and I can sense the desire of this in some of wotak's questions), but it won't get my full attention until after I'm finished with the meeptards who do not accept the meaning of the amendment as it was written.
And so there is no confusion, I am not saying that those who accept the meaning of the 2nd amendment as it was written cannot be dishonest and/or retards about anything else--even about different arguments withing the gun control debate--I'm just saying that their degree of dishonesty and/or retardedness on this one point is thoroughly obscured by being precisely correct on the point. This just means we must illuminate upon their dumb elsewhere.
But on the subject of those who do not accept the meaning of the amendment as it was written, it is patently clear that after all of the analysis--even that of the the three dishonest retards that wrote that amicus brief--the 2nd Amendment actually means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is so unambiguous that to not understand this, one must be retarded, or simply unwilling to understand it.
The latter is the case with the three retards who wrote the amicus brief--I still apply "dishonest retards" to cover my bases in the improbable case that 3 Ph.Ds in English wind up knowing meep nothing about the English language.
nocal's demand that 3 Ph.Ds in English cannot write some patent bullmeep to illicitly undermine the unambiguous meaning of the the 2nd Amendment--in particular, the operative 2nd clause of the 2nd Amendment--is the evidence I would bring to support the assertion of "retard." It is not in any way because he thinks there are smart people on both sides of the debate who are honestly debating the subject.
Besides, I didn't call him a retard in this debate--I called him intellectually dishonest . . . and cowardly. As the latest evidence his dishonesty I bring the misdirection he submitted above. Below, he will solidify the validity of the assertion by solidifying his understanding of what the actual unambiguous point of the 2nd amendment is, and then complain of it's ambiguity.
nocal will get no apology from me, because I didn't call him a retard.Actually, according to Strunk and White, the clause he offers is (objectively) identical in function and meaning to the clause existing in the 2nd amendment--which demonstrates that respecting the meaning of the 2nd, which unambiguously guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, nocal is not retarded.
That, after demonstrating his clear understanding of how clearly unambiguous that meaning is, I conclude his insistence upon it's ambiguous nature is resultant from his unwillingness to accept the validity of the point he validates himself--hence, intellectual dishonesty.
Aug21 '10
posts
2148 rads
2148 rads
#
have you ever noticed that loki and the_rat are never online at the same time?
Aug21 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
except they aren't the only ones.
what a strange world you live in where there is a debate about something written in such clear unambiguous english.
Aug22 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
Really? Despite the clear meaning of the amendment--unambiguously clear as you have validated--I can still understand a certain amount of apprehension regarding the consequences some might perceive in embracing that validity; particularly if those holding the apprehensions are unclear regarding what limits are attendant to "rights" in general, and to the right enumerated in the 2nd in particular. They are certainly going to attribute all kinds of unfounded consequences to embracing that validation if they are unclear about the conditions under which the notion of "rights" can be meaningful.
So when members the gun control crowd start wringing their hands over how and uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is a license to open fire on children in a crowded playground--or any variation or increment of the sentiment--I am lead to conclude that a profound misperception regarding the nature of "rights" in general, and "right" enumerated in the 2nd in particular, is present.
The fact that the source of opposition to the 2nd so very, very, often is found to reside in some variation or increment of its perceived equivalence to a license to mass murder, I do not find it strange at all that there is a debate about something written in such clear unambiguous English. It would just be a lot more helpful if they were honest with themselves about where their problem with their opponents really exists.
Aug22 '10
posts
31.3k rads
31323 rads
#
this post brought to you by loki's comfortable white worldview
1886 supreme court: intellectually dishonest
several current appeals courts: full of retardeds
district of columbia: not 100% retarded (?); considering unbanning tactical nuclear weapons to be consistent
district of columbia: hoisting loki by his own petard since forever
sufferers of downs syndrome vs. constitutional scholars vs. someone with a possible concussion
english apparently his second or even third language.
attended law school with barak hussein obama in mumbai
entire supreme court: potential idiots
2 members of the supreme court: definite idiots
Aug23 '10
posts
3998 rads
3998 rads
#
Everything past this is nothing but you attempt to reapply your discredited argument from authority--full on clownshoes.
But to sail out with "loki's comfortable white worldview" . . . I am left stunned by the magnitude of this gift.
Considering how you so passionately level your sanctimonious ans self-indicting notions of what racism is, who is racist, and was racist behavior racists are guilty of, I find it difficult to believe that you are entirely oblivious to the explicitly racist origins of gun control legislation, and the racist rationalizations that exempt such legislation from 2nd Amendment proscriptions.
You quite literally HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Congratulations, you have earned your retard credentials.
Aug23 '10
posts
13.2k rads
13246 rads
#
Wow.... Loki marched with Dr. King in Selma. Of course, he was packing.