US Politics: Shotgun Wedding edition

[Hayyoth]

Why do you think they used words like a well regulated militia?

I think they're very strong sounding words, manly even, yes I like them.

[Frog Eater]

Why do you think they used words like a well regulated militia?

maybe the sentence structure will help you out

[url=]http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

maybe you should focus on: "shall not be infringed" instead

[aceluby]

No license no civil marriage. Civil marriage is now a fundamental right, to deny a license when requested by a couple of either sex (assuming they meet age and non familial restrictions) is in contravention of the 14th amendment. I didn't say it makes sense I'm saying that's the ruling.

Which part of the 14th amendment requires a state to issue marriage certificates to anyone? You keep quoting the same one line, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. Context matters and you're ignoring the context to confound the issue into something it's not. Not surprising though.

[Hayyoth]

Which part of the 14th amendment requires a state to issue marriage certificates to anyone? You keep quoting the same one line, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. Context matters and you're ignoring the context to confound the issue into something it's not. Not surprising though.

How can people exercise their fundamental right to a civil marriage without a license? Will states be denying the exercise of that right by refusing to issue a license? Btw the answers are they can't and yes. And I quoted you the one line of the ruling that says exactly what you say it doesn't say! I'm just toucan, I need a break.

[alguien]

Bah. Ne'ermind.

[DanteGabriel]

@Reny of Storms End

Know the constitution, the idea of militia is the reason but not a prequesition.

And please do not stress militia too much, or the next thing is that actually to be able to form a well regulated militia today you need attack helicopters. And actually what else are they if not the cavelery of back then, and back then horses were legal, too.

The point is that it was written, when all a well regulated militia needed were a few muscets and maybe a cannon.

Hrm, it's almost as if a document written 230 years ago needs to be updated to modern understanding, and this argument that people need guns in order to resist the tyranny of a government that has attack helicopters and drones and tanks is... maybe a little obsolete.

[Astromech]

maybe the sentence structure will help you out

http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

maybe you should focus on: "shall not be infringed" instead

Frog Eater is correct regarding the 2nd Amendment and militias. Heller expanded the scope of the 2nd Amendment to include other lawful purposes such as self-defense. So a militia is not a requirement of the right to bear arms. An important aspect of the Heller case was that it concerned a District of Columbia firearm regulation, a federal enclave. Since it is historically States that have militias, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the 2nd Amendment to other lawful purposes. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment meant the 2nd Amendment right in Heller applied to the States.

[Summah]

Does that mean the right to bear arms applies to all the U.S. colonies?

[The Fallen]

How can people exercise their fundamental right to a civil marriage without a license? Will states be denying the exercise of that right by refusing to issue a license? Btw the answers are they can't and yes. And I quoted you the one line of the ruling that says exactly what you say it doesn't say! I'm just toucan, I need a break.

Did the justices change the language in the 14th amendment?

They're extrapolating from said amendment that the rights included therein are fundamental, which they are. If marriage fits the criteria, then it's fundamental. They're not claiming that you need a license for a fundamental right. Only that you can't discriminate against the gay community. And since marriage is currently administered through licenses then you must issue them to same sex couples.

[Astromech]

Does that mean the right to bear arms applies to all the U.S. colonies?

Lol, you're not getting them back, but I hope you like what we've done with them.

[aceluby]

How can people exercise their fundamental right to a civil marriage without a license? Will states be denying the exercise of that right by refusing to issue a license? Btw the answers are they can't and yes. And I quoted you the one line of the ruling that says exactly what you say it doesn't say! I'm just toucan, I need a break.

Your questions don't make sense, your answers don't make sense, and you seem to be working yourself up into a tizzy because you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what the ruling actually means. You do need a break, and maybe just drop this line because it's really.... really stupid.

[aceluby]

Hrm, it's almost as if a document written 230 years ago needs to be updated to modern understanding, and this argument that people need guns in order to resist the tyranny of a government that has attack helicopters and drones and tanks is... maybe a little obsolete.

What do you mean? Are you saying I can't stop a tank or nuclear bomb with a pistol? BLASPHEME!!

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Frog Eater is correct regarding the 2nd Amendment and militias. Heller expanded the scope of the 2nd Amendment to include other lawful purposes such as self-defense. So a militia is not a requirement of the right to bear arms. An important aspect of the Heller case was that it concerned a District of Columbia firearm regulation, a federal enclave. Since it is historically States that have militias, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the 2nd Amendment to other lawful purposes. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment meant the 2nd Amendment right in Heller applied to the States.

The Court decided this issue wrongly in Heller, overturning longstanding precedent which had declared that the right to gun ownership only existed in connection with militia service, and with vigorous dissent from four justices. Their ruling, unfortunately, carries force (until it's overturned by better justices one day), but that doesn't make their position right. The Court has a long history of bad decisions, including many very recently. The slim conservative majority's woefully historically blind and foolish decision sits firmly in this tradition of error, and it's absurd to declare that their ruling makes a position "right," with no reference to the content of that position.

[Shryke]

Yeah, it would be best not to confused the court's current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment with either it's historical purpose or it's interpretation prior to Heller, both of which are quite different from the current one.

Like many things with this court (though not gay marriage, cause Loving v Virginia) they have done some fairly radical reinterpretations to suit their own agenda.

[Astromech]

The Court decided this issue wrongly in Heller, overturning longstanding precedent which had declared that the right to gun ownership only existed in connection with militia service, and with vigorous dissent from four justices. Their ruling, unfortunately, carries force (until it's overturned by better justices one day), but that doesn't make their position right. The Court has a long history of bad decisions, including many very recently. The slim conservative majority's woefully historically blind and foolish decision sits firmly in this tradition of error, and it's absurd to declare that their ruling makes a position "right," with no reference to the content of that position.

To clarify, I'm simply stating what the SC held in that case and how Frog Eater's statement regarding militias no longer being a requirement is true according to the Heller decision. I am not advocating whether the SC was right or wrong in Heller.

[MerenthaClone]

No license no civil marriage. Civil marriage is now a fundamental right, to deny a license when requested by a couple of either sex (assuming they meet age and non familial restrictions) is in contravention of the 14th amendment. I didn't say it makes sense I'm saying that's the ruling.

Context, what is it? Taken completely in isolation, you're right, that is what that sentence fragment you're quoting implies. Bravo. Also, "assuming they meet age and nonfamilial restrictions" is basically conceding your own argument! States can apply restrictions all they want, provided they're applying them equally to both gay and straight couples.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

To clarify, I'm simply stating what the SC held in that case and how Frog Eater's statement regarding militias no longer being a requirement is true according to the Heller decision. I am not advocating whether the SC was right or wrong in Heller.

Thanks for the clarification. What the Court decided in Heller is not in dispute. Since Frog Eater has not said, "according to the recent Court decision the Second Amendment means x,y,z" but instead has been saying the "Second Amendment means x,y,z" without reference to Heller, it makes no sense to view Heller as making his position right, which it is not.

[Astromech]

sigh

here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

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.

My right to bear arms is not contingent on service in a militia

I was referring to this statement by Frog Eater which is correct according to the Heller decision. I should have quoted that rather than referring to it in my previous post.

[Reny of Storms End]

@Reny of Storms End

Know the constitution, the idea of militia is the reason but not a prequesition.

And please do not stress militia too much, or the next thing is that actually to be able to form a well regulated militia today you need attack helicopters. And actually what else are they if not the cavelery of back then, and back then horses were legal, too.

The point is that it was written, when all a well regulated militia needed were a few muscets and maybe a cannon.

I know the point, I was asking Hayyoth because he was, in my opinion, doing exactly the same thing. Taking a part of the whole and claiming that's what the Second Amendment was all about.

[Shryke]

Rand Paul being a Paul:

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/case-you-missed-rand-pauls-racial

Rand Paul met privately with Cliven Bundy on Monday, the Nevada rancher and anti-government activist told POLITICO.

Rand had thrown his support behind the rancher in 2013, calling the federal government’s actions “overreach.” But he withdrew it after the New York Times reported Bundy made racist remarks about blacks, saying they:

abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.

But Paul seemed ready to court him again on Monday.

His tweet really tells you all you need to know about this flavour of Paulite Libertarianism:

You can be a minority because of the color of your skin or the shade of your ideology.

Still bravely standing up for those horribly oppressed white men.