Re: Liberals, Guns, and why this Nation should never have been founded!

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:49:36 GMT, "BillB" <bogus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h570l3lu9uadpe7m01q9qjp1kgm9a68gtq@xxxxxxxxxx

This is the very last time I am going to attempt to explain this to
you. I promise.

I didn't say anything about my personal opinion on what the Second
Amendment stands for. Nada. Nor did I comment at all on Volokh's
opinion. I didn't even read it. I've read more or less the same paper
100 times. I've heard it all before many times over. Neither my
opinion (which, I repeat, was never given) or Volokh's opinion means
anything.

Volokh's opinion means considerably more than yours, even to me,
and I don't agree with him much.

What expresses the state of the law as we speak is what the
weight of authority says, and that's ALL I commented on (which you
seem to have tried to disguise by quoting only half my original
sentence, completely changing its meaning).

Now look. This is just bull***. This is my last reply too. I'm not even
going to discuss the merits any longer. I quoted EXACTLY what you
quoted in your post.

"The weight of legal authority makes it clear that the Second
Amendment is a collective right." That is the FULL SENTENCE. It is
what I replied to and I did not alter it by so much as a comma.

Here is your ENTIRE article, followed by my ENTIRE reply. I defy
you to point out so much as a scintilla of taking you out of context,
misrepresenting anything you said in any way at all, or other
dishonesty.

---

Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!newspeer.monmouth.com!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy1no!pd7cy2no!shaw.ca!pd7urf1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.80.162.230
From: "BillB" <bogus@xxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
References: <plir15x7no.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mVn3j.62906$PE.30738@pd7urf1no>
<6bg125xre7.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dZo3j.63940$PE.40685@pd7urf1no>
<ckjsk3phq2rdel79349febfjir0sh50r9p@xxxxxxx> <tus3j.66205$PE.47215@pd7urf1no>
<tqp325xqkc.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <05N3j.3528$UQ1.1045@pd7urf1no>
<hs8vk31outc8msnqk68p0acn72v6agc2bk@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Liberals, Guns, and why this Nation should never have been founded!
Lines: 37
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <vXN3j.3945$UQ1.678@pd7urf1no>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:19:07 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.59.144.75
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xxxxxxx
X-Trace: pd7urf1no 1196403547 64.59.144.75 (Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:19:07 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:19:07 MST
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Bytes: 2235
Xref: uni-berlin.de rec.gambling.poker:1618778


"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hs8vk31outc8msnqk68p0acn72v6agc2bk@xxxxxxxxxx


So when Volokh stated that the Second Amendment does protect an
individual
right, you agree with that and said exactly that?

Uhhhh...no. All I said in the first place is that the weight of legal
authority is clearly favours the collective rights model. That is
exactly what Volokh says in the sentence I quoted. I just can't make
it any clearer.

Well...maybe I can. Let's try this:

"The weight of legal authority makes it clear that the Second
Amendment
is a collective right."

~ =

"Despite all the above evidence, the federal courts of appeal have
unanimously subscribed to the states' right approach, though there are
a few recent hints to the contrary in some opinions."

Does that help at all?



(Note, the two decisions you claim came out of nowhere followed
Volokh's
1992 testimony. You think maybe he knows something?)

I'm not sure what you are getting at.



---MY REPLY---

Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks <nobody@xxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: Liberals, Guns, and why this Nation should never have been founded!
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:06:21 -0500
Organization: The Reality-Based Community
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <h570l3lu9uadpe7m01q9qjp1kgm9a68gtq@xxxxxxx>
References: <plir15x7no.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mVn3j.62906$PE.30738@pd7urf1no>
<6bg125xre7.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dZo3j.63940$PE.40685@pd7urf1no>
<ckjsk3phq2rdel79349febfjir0sh50r9p@xxxxxxx> <tus3j.66205$PE.47215@pd7urf1no>
<tqp325xqkc.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <05N3j.3528$UQ1.1045@pd7urf1no>
<hs8vk31outc8msnqk68p0acn72v6agc2bk@xxxxxxx> <vXN3j.3945$UQ1.678@pd7urf1no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net M1tYDk5yY00+3eXfaSP/RwkqEckPOtEKRqdjWessG+NCL9/vcc
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6/U/XH3RxpEZBOotkJ23oOD2W30=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
Xref: uni-berlin.de rec.gambling.poker:1618910

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:19:07 GMT, "BillB" <bogus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hs8vk31outc8msnqk68p0acn72v6agc2bk@xxxxxxxxxx

So when Volokh stated that the Second Amendment does protect an
individual
right, you agree with that and said exactly that?

Uhhhh...no. All I said in the first place is that the weight of legal
authority is clearly favours the collective rights model. That is
exactly what Volokh says in the sentence I quoted. I just can't make
it any clearer.

Well...maybe I can. Let's try this:

"The weight of legal authority makes it clear that the Second
Amendment
is a collective right."

Volokh didn't say that.

I thought you said Volokh agreed with you. He doesn't
agree with that.

He agrees most case law goes that way, and despite that, his opinion
is clearly and unequivocally exactly the opposite.

"The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep and bear
arms."

"The Text of the Amendment Refers to an Individual Right"

"Contemporaneous evidence from the late 1700s and 1800s unanimously supports the
individual rights reading of the text."

He agrees on the state of the case law (in testimony from 1992). The case law
has changed since then, and in fact, the more recent case law supports his
actual opinion.

He absolutely and without reservation disagrees with your conclusion that this
"makes it clear that the Second Amendment is a collective right." He believes,
to the contrary, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
Obviously, the Second Amendment cannot be said to *be* a right.

"Despite all the above evidence, the federal courts of appeal have
unanimously subscribed to the states' right approach, though there are
a few recent hints to the contrary in some opinions."

Does that help at all?

He states his opinion more clearly than that. Two Circuit Court rulings
finding as a matter of law that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right is rather more than a "hint."

(Note, the two decisions you claim came out of nowhere followed
Volokh's
1992 testimony. You think maybe he knows something?)

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

That Volokh may be winning the argument, which he admits is against
case law. I admit that as well. Nobody is disagreeing with it. It's just
irrelevant to the real issue, which is whether or not the Second Amendment
does, in fact, protect an individual right.

I posted the original url into the thread thinking it might contribute to the
discussion. You are apparently so irrational on the subject that you feel
compelled to misrepresent Volokh's position, which is completely at
variance with yours, though he may agree on one specific fact about
the state of case law. However, he made that statement in 1992.
It is clearly no longer true. The article states his general position, however,
which is unaltered, and contrary to your claim, is not remotely in
agreement with your statement that "the weight of legal authority makes it clear
that the Second Amendment is a collective right."

To the contrary, he makes a very strong argument from alternate authorities
for the incorrectness of primary authority. I doubt he is arguing with the
general concept that primary authority generally has more weight. Instead,
he is arguing that his two tons of feathers still manifestly outweigh a ton of
lead, even though lead is heavier.
.

Loading