The debate over assault weapons

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,402
327
near Seattle, Wa
The gossip I heard was that Tom "Dogballs" Ray used a modern dictionary to examine the term "to keep and bear arms.," last week.
He is behind on his reading, I fear. He is so out of the loop that he quoted and stood upon Scalia's "pretty good job."


Let's play, @Pertinacious Tom. Bring on your self-proclaimed reading skills. Scalia was a prevaricating bullshitter about the Second... and that is not gossip.

Let's play history teacher, in the courts. Now, a Mississippi judge wants a real historian. This, to please Alito , who brazenly requested the courts examine
the history.



The problem has gotten more attention since Bruen. Historians have been unsparing in their criticism of the decision. One expert on the Second Amendment called the Court’s historical analysis “an ideological fantasy.” Saul Cornell, Cherry‐ picked history and ideology‐driven outcomes: Bruen’s originalist distortions, ScotusBlog (June 27, 2022).

Another historian noted the “growing number of strictures on what [the Court] counts as historical evidence. There is no method to it, nothing but inconsistency and caprice.” Jill Lepore, The Supreme Court’s Selective Memory, The New Yorker (June 24, 2022).

These critiques support an increasingly common attack: that the Court simply “cherry‐picked” the historical record to arrive at its ideologically‐preferred outcome. Mark Joseph Stern, Clarence Thomas’ Maximalist Second Amendment Ruling Is a Nightmare for Gun Control, Slate (June 23, 2022).
.

us-v-bullock-historian-order.pdf (documentcloud.org)us-v-bullock-historian-order.pdf (documentcloud.org)us-v-bullock-historian-order.pdf (documentcloud.org)us-v-bullock-historian-order.pdf (documentcloud.org)us-v-bullock-historian-order.pdf (documentcloud.org)



ISSUES WITH "THE STANDARD MODEL SECOND AMENDMENT"
Yeah, let's play. Read this already, Dogballs.
G:\6x9 Folder\200000Folder\213394folder\213394-cover.pmd (nraila.org)


It's fucking Saul Cornell, Patrick Charles, Carl T Bogus, and Lois Schwoerer, together, mind you, as found in HELLER. And you are posing: you should have read this long before, in 2008. Once read, you should be able to stay on task, and discuss the particulars, and the inconsistencies presented, between the record and Scalia's snow job, in Heller.

Robert Levy, the very dark money behind the Heller scholarship, sat at the lead counsel table on that one. YCMTSU. He is the long-term Chairman down at CATO.
 
Last edited:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,402
327
near Seattle, Wa
"BEAR" and "ARMS":
A (Mostly Corpus-Based) Linguistic Reexamination of D.C. v. Heller and the Second Amendment
74 Pages Posted: 14 Nov 2019 Last revised: 27 Feb 2021
Neal Goldfarb
Independent
Date Written: November 5, 2019

Abstract
This is an in-depth linguistic analysis of the key language in the Second Amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms") that is based primarily on evidence of actual 18th-century usage. That evidence comes from two corpora that have been developed and made available by the BYU Law School as resources for researching the original meaning of the language used in the Constitution: COFEA (the Corpus of Founding Era American English) and COEME (the Corpus of Early Modern English).

The corpus data provides powerful evidence that contrary to what the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, "bear arms" was used in the Second Amendment in its idiomatic military sense, and in fact that it was most likely understood to mean serve in the militia. Thus, the right to bear arms was most likely understood as being the right to serve in the militia.

The analysis proceeds roughly as follows:
 

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,633
60
New Jersey
A (Mostly Corpus-Based) Linguistic Reexamination of D.C. v. Heller and the Second Amendment
74 Pages Posted: 14 Nov 2019 Last revised: 27 Feb 2021
Neal Goldfarb

You really will just randomly quote anyone who may agree with you, won't you?

Didn't you spend years telling us that lawyers are unqualified to say anything on the topic of 2A?

This guy is a lawyer, not a historian. His undergrad degree is not in linguistics.

Thus, the right to bear arms was most likely understood as being the right to serve in the militia.

So when Pennsylvania put this in their 1776 constitution "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" it _really_ only meant service in the militia - no matter what the plain language says?
 

Grrr...

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ 100%
10,281
2,688
Detroit
You really will just randomly quote anyone who may agree with you, won't you?

Didn't you spend years telling us that lawyers are unqualified to say anything on the topic of 2A?

This guy is a lawyer, not a historian. His undergrad degree is not in linguistics.



So when Pennsylvania put this in their 1776 constitution "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" it _really_ only meant service in the militia - no matter what the plain language says?
ButtPlugMaster Returns!

Hey dum dum. Your Pennsylvania quote specifically says to defend *themselves*. Does the second amendment?

Bzzzzt. You lose.
 
Oh, you crazy American gun nutters...
Careful, you'll shoot your eye out.
1667616635823.png

1667616359411.png
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,916
2,021
Punta Gorda FL
ButtPlugMaster Returns!

Hey dum dum. Your Pennsylvania quote specifically says to defend *themselves*. Does the second amendment?

Bzzzzt. You lose.
SCOTUS said:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

7
The Nilitia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia—civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

8
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The obvious purpose was to protect our right to keep and bear battlefield .22's and other weapons of war so that we could, if the need arose, form an effective militia by appearing bearing our weapons of war. If you rely on the government to arm you, you might wind up getting sent to the Ukraine with rusty junk that won't fire. Better to have our own.
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,402
327
near Seattle, Wa
SCOTUS said:

The cover sheet to the Miller decision. LMFAO!

Ah, this is the 1938 decision. The definitive, long-standing gun case recognizing only military gun rights for Jack Miller in the USA. This is case law which you flat-out mis-represent.
You claim this cover sheet bestows gun rights to the people, etc, but cannot quote anywhere Miller does that.

And you have also denied associating Miller with gun rights for the people, however repetitiously you did just that. Silly cunt stuff.
 
Last edited:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,916
2,021
Punta Gorda FL
Ah, this is the 1938 decision. The definitive, long-standing gun case recognizing only military gun rights for Jack Miller in the USA. This is case law which you flat-out mis-represent.
You claim this cover sheet bestows gun rights to the people, etc, but cannot quote anywhere Miller does that.
You claim it was 1938 but it was 1939.

You claim that's a link to a "cover sheet," whatever that is, but it's a link to the opinion of the court. I've corrected this very basic error from you once or twice before. Maybe the third time's a charm and you'll finally learn?

And even with those very basic mistakes, your ability to correctly identify a SCOTUS decision is better than Steam Flyer's so you've got that going for you. About like being better than a gnat, but you have to start somewhere.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,916
2,021
Punta Gorda FL
How many times did you post that stupid picture of the side-by-side .22s? How many times have you referred to one of them as a battlefield or assault rifle?
I don't know. Lots!

Is there something wrong with noting the fact that the assault weapon ban that recently passed the US House covers battlefield .22's?

If so, what's wrong with it?
 

tybee

Anarchist
869
266
around the bend
to me, the debate over "assault" weapons is concentrated on the ease of some lunkhead buying one this morning from Walmart and killing a bunch of school children this afternoon or shooting up a nightclub or a movie theater or a concert....etc.
what's the solution proposed by the "second amendment means i can buy any weapon i want" crowd?

as an aside, if they really mean "any weapon i want" then where's my thermonuclear weapon that i must have to protect me?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,916
2,021
Punta Gorda FL
to me, the debate over "assault" weapons is concentrated on the ease of some lunkhead buying one this morning from Walmart and killing a bunch of school children this afternoon or shooting up a nightclub or a movie theater or a concert....etc.
What do you propose to make it harder for lunkheads to buy battlefield .22's and other suitable militia weapons?

A big, stupid prohibition program like the one that makes it darn near impossible for us to buy pot?
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,402
327
near Seattle, Wa
What do you propose to make it harder for lunkheads to buy battlefield .22's and other suitable militia weapons?

A big, stupid prohibition program like the one that makes it darn near impossible for us to buy pot?

The AW ban of the past worked pretty well, and we know how to write up a better one now.

And any big, stupid prohibition system would probably work better than the 43% increase in gun homicides we have experienced since covid.
 


Latest posts



Top