This message was self-deleted by its author

[guillaumeb]

This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Tue Oct 3, 2017, 01:48 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[billh58]

1. K & R

and vote for Democrats in order to replace right-wing SCOTUS justices with sane and caring judges. The OP is exactly right: the Second Amendment was never meant to flood our communities with millions of guns in the hands of irresponsible owners.

[villager]

2. Many of Scalia's fellow travelers, who post here, are of a similar "intellectual" bent... nt

[jimmy the one]

5. blame gwbush too, GB

guillaume: Scalia, with his disingenuous and nonsensical interpretation of the so-called original intent of the Founders with regards to the Second Amendment, is the enabler of the violence. Whether this was his intent or not, his ridiculously tortured interpretation is now the official cover for all who advocate for the right to carry any weapon anywhere.

Concur; for a Canadian (iirc) you're pretty sharp on this. I would only add that the election/selection of GWBush (puppet of puppeteer DCheney) did more to enable scalia to this decision than scalia could've been personally responsible for, for had Al Gore been properly the president, the corruption of the true intent of the 2nd amendment could not have occurred.
GWBush put both rightwing nutjob Sam Alito on the supreme court, as well as more moderate John Roberts. Two GWBush appointees which would've should've been more liberal justices, & rightwing nutjob gura would never have been able to subvert 2ndA.
I will add I wasn't at all disappointed to hear of scalia's sudden passing in the night, indeed I removed him from my H2D2 list (clue: juxtapose dead & hope & drops & he). The other two remain on the list.

It would be one thing if Scalia had gotten the historical analysis of the Second Amendment correct in Heller. But the tragic fact is that he got it so thoroughly wrong.
As former Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his lengthy dissenting opinion in Heller, Scalia’s exegesis not only rendered the opening “militia clause” of the Second Amendment meaningless, but he also distorted and underplayed the importance of the actual debates conducted during the founding era on the amendment’s purpose and meaning. Those debates, Stevens forcefully argued, focused not on personal gun ownership but on the state militia, which the founders viewed as an antidote to a burdensome and potentially oppressive permanent standing federal army.

[jimmy the one]

7. dual citizenship

gulllaume: I have dual citizenship.

I looked into that once or twice after gwbush elected. Need live in canada (or vv) 3 years iirc (means 'if I remember correctly').
If trump somehow gets elected I plan on moving north to montreal/ottawa region & start fulfilling that requirement.
IIRC, I somehow have the impression you are from a central or western provice, like calgary etc., correct me if wrong. I think we briefly exchanged pleasantries on this previously. Maybe I'll be your eastern neighbor someday.

But I can also read, and any unbiased reading/interpretation of the Second Amendment would not dismiss 50% of the words as "merely prefatory". That is an outrageous exercise in linguistic and intellectual dishonesty.

I agree completely. As well as what you say above, Scalia's opinion & ruling was full of specious & faulty reasoning.
William Rawle circa 1825 wrote in his 'View of the Constitution', that the militia clause was a proposition that few would dissent, & that the rkba clause was a 'corollary' to the proposition, thus meaning something which is derived from the proposition.
So scalia, merely 'prefatory' my ass.

Rawle below, tho his view of 2ndA does contain some ambiguous interpretations, exploited by pro gun side. Rawle was even cited by Scalia to support his heller ruling. Scalia didn't cite the entire Rawle opinion, just parts which he could spin.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 1829 (2d ed.) ---{1st edition 1825}
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. {exploitable}>>>Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/amendIIs9.html

[Paladin]

9. I don't think I'll ever lose my enthusiam for Scalia being dead. (nt)

[Paladin]

11. Like I say: I'm glad he's gone. (nt)