Florida School Shooting

[JimL]

Mind if I look it up?

Here's how you presented the quote:

"Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited."

Here's the quote copied and pasted directly from the decision itself:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Can you spot your mistake, Jimmy?

That's own-goal #2.

Other than using the plural right-s instead of the singular right, which makes no difference to the point of the text, no I don't. The right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. And that is the point, and that was the majority opinion, written by Antonin Scalia. So what's the point you're trying to make.

[JimL]

I knew immediately it wasn't a direct quote from Scalia, that's for sure.

It was a majority opinion written by Scalia, Mr. I knew immediately.

[Cow Poke]

It was a majority opinion written by Scalia, Mr. I knew immediately.

You're still too dumb to know it was a corrupted quote, Mr. Too Stupid to Know What Verb Agreement is, even when MM tried to bail you out. But, that's OK, keep digging.

[Mountain Man]

Jimmy presents a classic example of somebody who is mentally stuck in the mud and spinning his tires

[Cow Poke]

Jimmy presents a classic example of somebody who is mentally stuck in the mud and spinning his tires

Something SO SIMPLE is beyond his grasp - and you put it right there in front of him!

[Starlight]

Jimmy presents a classic example of somebody who is mentally stuck in the mud and spinning his tires

Two of TWeb's dumbest posters, MM and CP, are trying to claim Jim is dumb? Wow. Points for creativity at least.

[Cow Poke]

Two of TWeb's dumbest posters, MM and CP, are trying to claim Jim is dumb? Wow. Points for creativity at least.

OK, how many points do you want for your creative stupidity?

How bout helping out your little buddy by explaining to him what verb agreement is*, and why I immediately was suspicious that it was actually a quote from Scalia, the way Jimmy copy/pasted it?


*I suspect a brilliant scholar such as yourself understands a simple concept like verb agreement

[JimL]

OK, how many points do you want for your creative stupidity?

How bout helping out your little buddy by explaining to him what verb agreement is*, and why I immediately was suspicious that it was actually a quote from Scalia, the way Jimmy copy/pasted it?


*I suspect a brilliant scholar such as yourself understands a simple concept like verb agreement

Duh! That has nothing to do with the point of the post, CP. The point is that the majority opinion in the case is that "Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited." And that majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia.

[Cow Poke]

Duh!

That's about the extent of your intelligence.

That has nothing to do with the point of the post, CP. The point is that the majority opinion in the case is that "Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited." And that majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia.

You finally got it right!

[Starlight]

The point is that the majority opinion in the case is that "Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited." And that majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia.

It's also worth noting the decision was 5-4, and overturned 200+ years of precedent, and that most sane people think it was a ludicrously wrong legal decision.

I would personally say that I think having a Republican-appointed majority on SCOTUS for the past ~30 years has been one of the most damaging things to happen to America and is a substantial reason the country has fallen so far behind the rest of the Western world, because the 5 Republican judges keep making decisions that range from moronic to insane. Deciding in 2008 that an amendment that says that states can operate well-regulated militias really means that states can't regulate people's weapons, should go down in the history books as one of the more insane legal decisions. Alongside it goes that Florida is unable to do a recount of its own votes in this one particular case but this isn't binding in general (Bush v Gore 2000). And that corporations bribing politicians doesn't even have "the appearance of corruption" (Citizens United 2010). Honestly, I can't really think of enough negative words or insults to describe the sheer insanity and moronic qualities of the 5 Republican judges (particularly Scalia, who sadly has been replaced by someone who seems to be trying to outdo Scalia in bias, ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy, but I'm not sure that's actually possible).

[Mountain Man]

Duh! That has nothing to do with the point of the post, CP. The point is that the majority opinion in the case is that "Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited." And that majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia.

You finally got the quote right but without acknowledging your mistake or admitting which anti-gun nutter's blog you pulled that erroneous quote from. So one step forward and two steps back, which puts you still one step behind.

Now how about reading the rest of the decision that pull-quote comes from and conceding that the overall opinion of the Supreme Court does not support your position. Remember, the quote comes from a decision striking down the District of Columbia's attempt to outright ban handguns. By quoting from that decision, are you implying your agreement that gun bans are unconstitutional?

[JimL]

You finally got the quote right but without acknowledging your mistake or admitting which anti-gun nutter's blog you pulled that erroneous quote from. So one step forward and two steps back, which puts you still one step behind.

Now how about reading the rest of the decision that pull-quote comes from and conceding that the overall opinion of the Supreme Court does not support your position. Remember, the quote comes from a decision striking down the District of Columbia's attempt to outright ban handguns. By quoting from that decision, are you implying your agreement that gun bans are unconstitutional?

Wrong again dunderhead. What I'm affirming is exactly what the Supreme Court, in the words of Scalia, the conservatives favorite Justice, "the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited." That supports my position. If you think not, then explain why. Banning the right to possess hand guns would be unconstitutional, but since the outright banning of guns is not what's being suggested here by anyone, so your point is moot.

[JimL]

It's also worth noting the decision was 5-4, and overturned 200+ years of precedent, and that most sane people think it was a ludicrously wrong legal decision.

I would personally say that I think having a Republican-appointed majority on SCOTUS for the past ~30 years has been one of the most damaging things to happen to America and is a substantial reason the country has fallen so far behind the rest of the Western world, because the 5 Republican judges keep making decisions that range from moronic to insane. Deciding in 2008 that an amendment that says that states can operate well-regulated militias really means that states can't regulate people's weapons, should go down in the history books as one of the more insane legal decisions. Alongside it goes that Florida is unable to do a recount of its own votes in this one particular case but this isn't binding in general (Bush v Gore 2000). And that corporations bribing politicians doesn't even have "the appearance of corruption" (Citizens United 2010). Honestly, I can't really think of enough negative words or insults to describe the sheer insanity and moronic qualities of the 5 Republican judges (particularly Scalia, who sadly has been replaced by someone who seems to be trying to outdo Scalia in bias, ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy, but I'm not sure that's actually possible).

Unfortunately conservatives look upon the Constitution as if it were the word of god rather than fallible human beings. In my opinion, in cases such as the 2nd amendment, you have to take the circumstances of the times into consideration when interpreting the intentions of the Founding Fathers. On top of that, even if we could know their intent concerning the amendment, we as a country can disagree with it and change it. In my opinion, we are ruled by the Constitution only in so far as we as a country agree to be ruled by it.

[Mountain Man]

What I'm affirming is exactly what the Supreme Court, in the words of Scalia, the conservatives favorite Justice, "the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited."

Whatever limits might be placed on our right to weapons of self-defense are extremely narrow and explicitly defined in the decision itself. And, no, those limits can not be arbitrarily expanded per the decision of the Supreme Court.

[JimL]

Whatever limits might be placed on our right to weapons of self-defense are extremely narrow and explicitly defined in the decision itself. And, no, those limits can not be arbitrarily expanded per the decision of the Supreme Court.

If the limitations on our right to bear arms are explicitly defined, then lets hear from you what those limitations are?