School Shooting in Knoxville

#951
#951
NorthDallas40 said:
Nope. My comments are correct and are in line with the findings. You just saying “nuh uh” has no weight. You would have been better off just not replying.

And yes NFA1934 was indeed the first relevant federal limitation on private firearm ownership. What do you have that was earlier? Which of course then makes it relevant and directly refutes your assertion that the concept of no limitations on firearm ownership is a modern concept.
Click to expand...

Not federal, but Virgil and Wyatt wouldn't let Ike carry a gun in town in 1879. It became a problem. I know cause I saw it in a movie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#952
#952
NorthDallas40 said:
Hey @Grand Vol come get in on the fun of parsing the Heller decision and Scalia’s word salad opinion. You will absolutely love this! 😂
Click to expand...

Do I need too?

You have been arguing with luther who takes pride in trolling the hell out of you.

I'm down to go toe to toe with @RockyTop85 over Heller, McDonald and Miller. But he'll just throw a temper tantrum before long and start hurling insults.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and hog88
#953
#953
Grand Vol said:
Do I need too?

You morons have been arguing with idiots like luther who takes pride in trolling the hell out of you.

I'm down to go toe to toe with @RockyTop85 over Heller, McDonald and Miller. But he'll just throw a temper tantrum before long and start hurling insults.
Click to expand...
Too late he already did 😂

Thus far the only compelling defense I’ve got in reply is multiple WRONGs 🤣.

Jump on in the water is fine. Plus I admittedly don’t know jack about McDonald anyway but that hasn’t been an issue since RT doesn’t know jack about any of the three.
 
#955
#955
NorthDallas40 said:
LMFAO what’s clear is I understand the opinion more than you. I’ve even outlined the conflicting sections.

Have you considered applying to be Trump’s caddie? He’d love the way you keep score! 🤡

What’s your win/loss record pettifogger? And id love to see you in court. I bet the judges LOVE you 🤣
Click to expand...
The guy who thought that all the concurring justices authored the opinion together and can’t articulate the meaning of 3/4 of the opinion beyond “word salad” has got it figured out.

All 5 justices, their 20 law clerks, and thousands of court observers missed that 3/4 of the sections were “conflicting,” whatever that means.
 
#956
#956
Grand Vol said:
Do I need too?

You morons have been arguing with idiots like luther who takes pride in trolling the hell out of you.

I'm down to go toe to toe with @RockyTop85 over Heller, McDonald and Miller. But he'll just throw a temper tantrum before long and start hurling insults.
Click to expand...
He could definitely use your help and I can’t imagine you could do any worse, but my imagination has been proven to be limited in that regard on a number of occasions.
 
#957
#957
RockyTop85 said:
The guy who thought that all the concurring justices authored the opinion together and can’t articulate the meaning of 3/4 of the opinion beyond “word salad” has got it figured out.

All 5 justices, their 20 law clerks, and thousands of court observers missed that 3/4 of the sections were “conflicting,” whatever that means.
Click to expand...
LMFAO after three pages of WRONG you’re backed into a corner and completely sold out on a point I admitted was a guess and didn’t really know at the very start. All I knew was generally the clerks write the opinions.

Bravo pettifogger you’re a legend in your own mind and prime material for a Trump caddie and score keeper 🤡
 
#958
#958
RockyTop85 said:
He could definitely use your help and I can’t imagine you could do any worse, but my imagination has been proven to be limited in that regard on a number of occasions.
Click to expand...
I hope your imagination is better than your legal acumen because it’s fairly apparent that completely sucks 🤡
 
#959
#959
RockyTop85 said:
He could definitely use your help and I can’t imagine you could do any worse, but my imagination has been proven to be limited in that regard on a number of occasions.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to discuss how screwed up Miller was?
 
#960
#960
Grand Vol said:
Do you really want to discuss how screwed up Miller was?
Click to expand...
No he doesn’t. And all you’ll get in reply is WRONG. But let’s start with the vociferous defense mounted by defendants counsel. And btw defendant I believe was pushing up daisies at that point too
 
#961
#961
NorthDallas40 said:
LMFAO after three pages of WRONG you’re backed into a corner and completely sold out on a point I admitted was a guess and didn’t really know at the very start. All I knew was generally the clerks write the opinions.

Bravo pettifogger you’re a legend in your own mind and prime material for a Trump caddie and score keeper 🤡
Click to expand...
Completely sold out on? Wrong.

It’s the most humiliating of your 20+ erroneous statements. And, no, you didn’t admit it was a guess (although the fact that you didn’t know would still be worthy of great shame) you doubled down and said “that’s stupid” when I corrected you. Then you tried to say the clerks wrote it, which was also shown to be wrong, but I generously gave partial credit there.

And, if you’ll recall, your “nuh uh, he didn’t say that” nonsense was central to one of the 18 other clubs I’ve still got in the bag to tee off on you with. So that’s three that have been definitively proven to be wrong. Plus all the times you claimed you accurately represented the opinion despite admitting to only having read 1/4 of it. So there’s an admission to about 5 more.

Plus the citation to section 3 where Scalia, speaking for the court, clearly states that the operative clause is not unlimited.

Objectively wrong doesn’t require more than a citation. You’ve gotten more than you deserved. You’re benched.
 
#963
#963
RockyTop85 said:
Completely sold out on? Wrong.

It’s the most humiliating of your 20+ erroneous statements. And, no, you didn’t admit it was a guess (although the fact that you didn’t know would still be worthy of great shame) you doubled down and said “that’s stupid” when I corrected you. Then you tried to say the clerks wrote it, which was also shown to be wrong, but I generously gave partial credit there.

And, if you’ll recall, your “nuh uh, he didn’t say that” nonsense was central to one of the 18 other clubs I’ve still got in the bag to tee off on you with. So that’s three that have been definitively proven to be wrong. Plus all the times you claimed you accurately represented the opinion despite admitting to only having read 1/4 of it. So there’s an admission to about 5 more.

Plus the citation to section 3 where Scalia, speaking for the court, clearly states that the operative clause is not unlimited.

Objectively wrong doesn’t require more than a citation. You’ve gotten more than you deserved. You’re benched.
Click to expand...
Doubling down on your only weak ass “point” as your retort?! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Correct in finding 3 they stated that the operative clause was limited... after they said in finding 1 that the prefatory clause has no teeth and only the operative clause has weight. And they ended finding 3 with the quote which I highlighted... saying that they couldn’t reinterpret the right stated in finding 1. I already said all of this. The Scalia opinion is contradictory word salad.
 
Last edited:
#964
#964
NorthDallas40 said:
Doubling down on your only weak ass “point” as your retort?! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Correct in finding 3 they stated that the operative clause wasn’t limited... after they said in finding 1 that the prefatory clause has no teeth and only the operative clause has weight. And they ended finding 3 with the quote which I highlighted... saying that they couldn’t reinterpret the right stated in finding 1. I already said all of this.
Click to expand...
Wrong. In section three Scalia does place limits on the operative clause. GTFOH. I quoted it in its entirety and bolder the limits including the part where he said it was non-exhaustive.
 
#965
#965
RockyTop85 said:
Wrong. In section three Scalia does place limits on the operative clause. GTFOH. I quoted it in its entirety and bolder the limits including the part where he said it was non-exhaustive.
Click to expand...
Yes nimrod he does! After in finding 1 he stated the only phrase with teeth was the operative clause. Which says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That’s very specific. He contradicted himself! I’ve said that multiple times dufus!
 
#969
#969
NorthDallas40 said:
Yes nimrod he does! After in finding 1 he stated the only phrase with teeth was the operative clause. Which says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That’s very specific. He contradicted himself! I’ve said that multiple times dufus!
Click to expand...
Wrong. They are not contradictory. He explains this in the opinion.
It would help if you understood all of section 1 instead of just cherry picking the sentences that affirm your preferred meaning of the case.
And you said repeatedly that his opinion was “consistent” with your claim that the government wasn’t allowed to restrict the right in any way. So now you admit he did place limits on the right, so you admit that you were wrong.

You’re making good progress on another 20 incorrect statements but I have to give you some credit for admitting to the last 20.
 
#972
#972
RockyTop85 said:
Wrong. They are not contradictory. He explains this in the opinion.
It would help if you understood all of section 1 instead of just cherry picking the sentences that affirm your preferred meaning of the case.
And you said repeatedly that his opinion was “consistent” with your claim that the government wasn’t allowed to restrict the right in any way. So now you admit he did place limits on the right, so you admit that you were wrong.

You’re making good progress on another 20 incorrect statements but I have to give you some credit for admitting to the last 20.
Click to expand...
Oh bull ****! The only validation on limitation listed in the decision is based on “arms in common use for lawful purposes”. And that rationale came from the broke ass decision in Miller which upheld NFA1934. Thus they limited what types of weapons were allowed, thus making possession of them unlawful, and said that was valid under 2a! It’s bull **** word salad and you’re wrong again. They’re basis for claiming they are right is because they made a law that stated they were right, NFA1934. It’s frigging circular logic!

And you’re using the same circular logic to claim you’re right! I see a pattern 🤡
 
Last edited:
#973
#973
NorthDallas40 said:
Oh bull ****! The only validation on limitation listed in the decision is based on “arms in common use for lawful purposes”. And that rationale came from the broke ass decision in Miller which upheld NFA1934. Thus they limited what types of weapons were allowed, thus making possession of them unlawful, and said that was valid under 2a! It’s bull **** word salad and you’re wrong again. They’re basis for claiming they are right is because they made a law that stated they were right, NFA1934. It’s frigging circular logic!

And you’re using the same circular logic to claim you’re right! I see a pattern 🤡
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Every. Last. Sentence.
 
#975
#975
Ok, let’s start from the beginning on Heller:

Scalia was an originalist, meaning he viewed the constitution through the lens of how it was understood at ratification.

He also has to be consistent with precedent or have five votes to overturn precedent. Miller was, at the time, good precedent and all this whining about how “messed up” it was or how the court “had to grant it or gut the law” is pretty meaningless. The court in Miller absolutely could have gutted the law, as they did in Heller, or done any number of lesser measures. They didn’t, they ruled the way they ruled and it was good law for nearly 70 years.

The bulk of Heller is about squaring it with the prefatory clause and/or Miller.

Section 1 is simply the facts and procedural posture.

In Section 2, Scalia starts with the prefatory clause (It being necessary to the establishment of a well regulated militia...) he writes that the prefatory clause announces a purpose, not a condition precedent, and that the operative clause (the right to bear arms shall not be infringed) supplies an individual right.

He explains his view of the context of the prefatory clause, including how it came into being and the concerns that prompted. In response to those concerns, the constitution was amended to include the right to bear arms.

That right, he says, was “not intended to lay down a ‘novel principl[e]’ but rather codifi[y] a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors...” Heller at 2801. This means that the right is subject to that same originalist contextualizing, but that it’s history goes back further than the founding.

It helps to think that The Right to Bear Arms is essentially like a title of a book, rather than an ordinary phrase. The title of the book doesn’t convey the full meaning of its contents, but Congress cannot abridge the book. You get all the chapters that existed at the time of ratification. No more. No less. (For an originalist). This is how all of the Bill of Rights is generally viewed by SCOTUS’s originalist justices (which includes all of the Trump appointees.)

He then supports this interpretation with citations to documents contemporaneous to the founding, analogous state constitutional sections, scholarly interpretations, and by reviewing the court’s own precedent. This is where he draws his “authority for saying he is right.”

Distilling all of that into “prefatory clause has no teeth” is made up reductionist nonsense. To follow that by bitching about circular logic and a lack of authority is astoundingly ignorant. He supplies the authority and historical support for what he’s saying in the pages of the opinion.

Section 3 has been posted here in its entirety. It is analogous to a very brief synopsis of the book titled The Right to Bear Arms. Scalia includes citations to authority to support it as well.

Section 4 is where he applies the established rubric to the facts of the case, finding that the individual has a right to possess, (1) a firearm commonly used (2) for a traditionally lawful purpose, (3) inside your own home.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top