TexasCHLforum.com

AG-EE wrote:

whether or not the 2nd applies to DC because it isn't a state

That is pretty convoluted reasoning. Then we can quarter troops in their houses too, right?

Everyone hates it when lawyers use legalize, but there is a highly technical legal concept at work in the dissent's argument. The Latin phrase setting out this concept translates to, "I know my argument sucks, but it's all I've got!"

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AG-EE wrote:

whether or not the 2nd applies to DC because it isn't a state

That is pretty convoluted reasoning. Then we can quarter troops in their houses too, right?

Everyone hates it when lawyers use legalize, but there is a highly technical legal concept at work in the dissent's argument. The Latin phrase setting out this concept translates to, "I know my argument stinks, but it's all I've got!"

Chas.

Charles, so what IS the latin phrase. Sounds like something we could all use from time to time.

Yes, it is fairly evident she is grasping for straws! At least she had no way to counter their dissection of the collective rights theory.

stroo wrote:The dissenting opinion is based on whether or not the 2nd applies to DC because it isn't a state. That is a very weak reed for the antis to rely on.

Especially since it implies that 2A does apply "as written" to the states outside of DC.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AG-EE wrote:

whether or not the 2nd applies to DC because it isn't a state

That is pretty convoluted reasoning. Then we can quarter troops in their houses too, right?

Everyone hates it when lawyers use legalize, but there is a highly technical legal concept at work in the dissent's argument. The Latin phrase setting out this concept translates to, "I know my argument stinks, but it's all I've got!"

Chas.

You just helped me make it through the day! Love it!

CWOOD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AG-EE wrote:

whether or not the 2nd applies to DC because it isn't a state

That is pretty convoluted reasoning. Then we can quarter troops in their houses too, right?

Everyone hates it when lawyers use legalize, but there is a highly technical legal concept at work in the dissent's argument. The Latin phrase setting out this concept translates to, "I know my argument stinks, but it's all I've got!"

Chas.

Charles, so what IS the latin phrase. Sounds like something we could all use from time to time.

'E Putribus Unum"

Good stuff, but I doubt the SCOTUS will hear it - ever. They have avoided this issue in the past. I see no reason why they will do anything different. Even if SCOTUS heard and it and ruled in our favor, it could back-fire on us. If gun rights DO NOT APPEAR to be an issue then I feel there are many, especially union memebers, that might put democrates in office and they in turn might try to pass a constitutional amendment changing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Sounds far fetched I know, but they are a sneaky bunch of bastards. It would have been much better if such a case was heard while Republicans held the power.

TEX wrote:Good stuff, but I doubt the SCOTUS will hear it - ever. They have avoided this issue in the past. I see no reason why they will do anything different. Even if SCOTUS heard and it and ruled in our favor, it could back-fire on us. If gun rights DO NOT APPEAR to be an issue then I feel there are many, especially union memebers, that might put democrates in office and they in turn might try to pass a constitutional amendment changing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Sounds far fetched I know, but they are a sneaky bunch of bastards. It would have been much better if such a case was heard while Republicans held the power.

You bring up an idea that is certainly been a concern...Yet it could, but probably only be one of those last desparate measures taken, and one with a whole bunch of other distractions thrown into the mix...

Its almost like if they felt it necessary to do the same thing to the Big #1 Amendment...

When you get right down to it...I doubt there is anyone on either side of the aisle with the guts to even attempt such a drastic measure...

It seems enought just to introduce bills that peck away at the thing...

I'm just glad the document as a whole irritates to no end some of the people who get elected to office...I kinda chuckle sometimes...

It will be great to get a SCOTUS ruling that the right applies to individuals. Maybe then we can take a look at "shall not be infringed."

E Putribus Unum

Well, I thought it was funny.

jimlongley wrote:E Putribus Unum

Well, I thought it was funny.

Jim, it WAS funny. I just didn't notice until you put it in bigger letters. I guess I gotta get these glasses (eyes) checked. Thanks

jimlongley wrote:E Putribus Unum

Well, I thought it was funny.

I didn't know it was a joke. I thought you and Charles were just being intellectual and I couldn't keep up!

I like stevie_d_64's point about getting this appeal through SCOTUS before the UN gets further on this Int'l arms treaty. Of course, SCOTUS needs to recognize the right for what it is.

They can take that treaty and blow it out their ear.
If, and I do mean IF, any U.S. President or legislature ever agrees to that stupid thing, there will be a housecleaning of the U.N. building like they can't imagine.

If they want to know how many guns we have... agree to this thing, and find out.

kauboy wrote:They can take that treaty and blow it out their ear.
If, and I do mean IF, any U.S. President or legislature ever agrees to that stupid thing, there will be a housecleaning of the U.N. building like they can't imagine.

If they want to know how many guns we have... agree to this thing, and find out.

You may be in a very long line...Behind me, of course...

Something to think about though...And this is a Stevie-D original:

"I do not really fear my government (they are pretty easy to see through), but, I do fear the tyrrany (and stupidity) of good intentions..."