Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sometimes I feel like a guy stranded behind enemy lines, and all I have is FR.
I agree. (As you no doubt surmised, I made my previous reply before reading this post)
It protects the ability of a state to form a militia from federal infringement. I guess that makes it a collective right, though it's really an individual right applied collectively.
"Do you believe the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) limits government power or grants people rights?"
The first eight amendments protect certain rights from federal infringement. At least, that's how they were written.
"Thank you in advance for two yes or no answers."
Oops. Sorry. I didn't read ahead. Let me try that again.
"Do you believe the Second Amendment protects and individual right or a collective right?"
Yes.
"Do you believe the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) limits government power or grants people rights?"
No.
How do you answer these?
Yes. But you have to agree the language used in section IV of the opinion is great dicta for a future incorporation argument, when the case arises. Also, the language virtually equating the rights conferred by the Second Amendment with that of the First is great stuff.
He believes it's an individual right to participate in a government-operated militia according to their rules with their equipment.
Took me a while to drag that out of him.
I'll bet you can't identify your argument in 60 years.
"If you don't agree that Miller demonstrates that the Second Amendment deals with an individual right then you are either an uneducated windbag, a shill or both."
A demonstration of an individual right? You're sure about that?
OK then. Why did the U.S. Supreme Court even mention "militia"? If Miller was about an individual right to keep and bear arms, what the heck does a militia have to do with anything?
So if people start getting critical of your arguments, your fitting response is to insult them?
Huh?
I told the poster that I will go toe-to-toe with him and debate the Miller decision.
Kennedy is a strange guy.
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, or the fight to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
You feel comfortable with those two decisions by those two circuits? You want the U.S. Supreme Court to make a second amendment decision based on only two decisions in our favor? 70 years we've been waiting and you want to move right now -- now's the time?
I don't think so.
Yeah, I know this is late in the thread, but if anyone reads this far into the thread and knows of an HTML version of the opinion, I would greatly appreciate it. I'm in the process of converting the PDF from PDF to HTML, but this is largely a manual process. I've run it through 'pdf2ascii' to get the text, and am now in the process of encoding it with markup.
If it has already been done, I'd appreciate a pointer, so as to not duplicate effort.
Love your tag;-)
The 9th Circuit Court refused the request for an en banc rehearing of Silveira v. Lockyer.
Anyways, the dissent to which you're referring would be the minority dissent. The losing dissent. The dissent-and-25-cents-will-get-you-a-cup-of-coffee dissent.
I read the dissent. I read the Sunday comics. They both have equal weight on the decision.
Or, with Kelo as an example, everyone would then have no protection against infringement from state and local governments.
Just FYI...at one point in time, slavery was legal in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the original 13 US colonies.
If by "critical" you mean nitpicking and insinuating, then yes. But you'll note I held back.
Try Googling the decision. From the results of the search, sometimes you can then select between HTML or .pdf versions of the text.
You do realize that such dissents are sometimes referred to by the SCOTUS in their opinions? (Mainly because of the justices' clerks who have done a lot of reading on these cases and will sometimes want to insert a clever comment or two.) Yes, even in a case where it was a dissent from a case that's not immediately before the Court (but the same issue). No, it's not often, and like the pure circuit counting it's not really that important in the overall scheme of things (because it's used to bolster an opinion a justice is writing vs. his vote at conference), but your sarcastic tone isn't warranted.
On an unrelated note, you might want to consider how you're debating people. Attacking people with sarcasm and name-calling isn't going to win over many people to your point of view. I know your POV is the minority on this site, but that makes it all the more important to remember what they say about honey and vinegar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.