philster

Don't wanna. I've read enough on it. Remember who pointed you to the case Search the definition I gave you above and include scalia in the search parameters. I believe he was the one who wrote it.

And remember, I count on the second amendment as much as you do. I'm not arguing against it, just suggesting that requiring a little demonstration of proficiency before being allowed to concealed carry isn't unconstitutional as the amendment is currently interpreted by the court.

DevilDoc

Scalia was in the majority, and supported it. Stevens and Sotamayor were the dissenting view. Maybe you read the wrong case?

philster

Scalia was in the majority and in his comments wrote about discipline and training. He was essentially saying "well regulated militia" did NOT mean a civilian national guard.

DevilDoc

I think i'm done here..

philster

Hard to argue against the truth...

DevilDoc

The truth of what? You've changed your story a few times now, so i'm not sure what you're referring to.

philster

Learn to read. I've never changed anything. Scalia DID say well regulated implies discipline and training. He also said that the framers did NOT intend for well regulated to mean anything approaching the National Guard, and the right to arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a group right.

You can find reams of anti-gun nut criticism of his "inconsistency" in this case. You seem to have the same problem they do in following his reasoning. It's called nuance. It's more complicated than a "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand" mentality. If you can't follow his arguments, it's not my fault.

I haven't changed my story once in this thread.

deadshot2

Haven't you said this before? In another Forum?

philster

It's called cutting and running. The only refuge for those incapable of saying either "you're right" or "I'm wrong", or even "Oh, is that what you meant. I misunderstood"

DevilDoc

Driving is not a right. Moving around from place to place doesn't require a car, it just facilitates it. The constitution does however guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, "unrelated to military service". That was one of the big "wins" in DC v Heller. You're wrong here.

No, you're wrong. Read my post above.

I know what well regulated militia means, and so does Scalia. Which is why he wrote that membership in a militia wasn't a requirement to keeping and bearing arms. You're wrong here too.

No, that's not what DC v Heller meant. If you'd read the link I posted, you'd have seen that. You're wrong again.

If you're still confused as to what DC v Heller meant, you can peruse this link.

Oh, I see you don't like inconvenient facts. Oh, and Scalia was in the majority, not a dissenting point of view. Wrong again.

Again, no he didn't. Wrong again.

Oh, now "well regulated" doesn't mean membership in a well disciplined militia? Wrong yet again, and now you're back pedaling.

No, don't think I have. What are you referring to?

No, it's more along the lines of "if you win the special olympics, it doesn't really matter because you're still a retard". I'm tired of wasting effort on you. You refuse to admit that you misunderstood the 2nd ammendment, misunderstood what DC v Heller meant, and misunderstood even which Chief Justice said what even though I posted a direct link to a summary. Next time I should use crayons and construction paper? The sad thing here is that you think you're an educated voter, when all you are is ...misinformed, and vocally so. That's the only down side to democracy. You know, the "less intellectually gifted" get to vote too. See you at the election booth champ.

philster

You really have poor comprehension skills, and even weaker critical thinking skills. I've never said it does.

What I said is "The supreme court has determined that it means the imposition of proper discipline and training." yes that's a quote from a previous post.

Scalia wrote in Heller that well-regulated implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. He freakin' wrote it. No you won't find that on wikipedia. You have to read the case. Why can't you wrap your brain around that? That's the sticking point for you obviously. You have to comes to terms with the fact that he could both write that AND define the right to bear arms as a PERSONAL right. Life is rarely black and white.

I've stated at least 3 times that he didn't find that it meant anything along the lines of the National Guard. But you can't dismiss his statement. Look at the Arizona Minute Men. They got together, imposed discipline (rules of engagement, some fundamental chain of command) and ensured that folks wouldn't shoot themselves. Discipline and training. I have been safety trained by my club, and have "qualified" with sidearms, and am on the emergency alert list. Discipline and training in its own right. It's a fluid and difficult to define concept. That works in our favor. You have to get away from the "they're gonna take my guns away! Durk-a Dur!" paranoia to understand it.

One more time. Take a deep breath and read the following sentence. Scalia wrote well-regulated implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training AND supported the personal right to arms. Just focus on this last paragraph if you have to.

deadshot2

Then it was someone using a very similar screen name. He got all whizzed off when someone took him to task over a series of posts and left in a huff.

A case of mistaken identity it appears.

DevilDoc

Are you talking about this thread?

bigggbbruce

MODERATOR..!!! Clean up in isle ....oh wow...

deadshot2

I forgot to mention it was on a different Forum, just a similar Screen Name.

Monster4570

YES!! Government controlled reproduction!!
That's a great idea!

sunofnun

jezus christ.. you guys are cousin fuckers.. lol


buh bye.