Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[FJRider]

But if it isn't enforceable by the Courts....

So ... you're a Judge or a Lawyer now ... When did that happen ...

As for the not-existing part - Deep Sea fishing and Radio Waves didn't exist (or weren't known to exist) but yet they are covered by the Treaty...

Perhaps we should restrict them to be only allowed to fish from their canoes that they have to paddle out with ... as per their traditional method.

You'd be in agreement with that. The Treaty ... as per intended and meant at the time the treat was written ...

I'm stating what the two interpretations are, I've stated I tend to side more on the originalist P.o.V. This isn't hard to follow.

My interpretations of your posts ... may vary considerably ... ... with your ideas and opinions. Which neither of those will make any fucking difference to the United States Constitution. Or how it will (or should) be interpreted there ... nor will have any influence on those making any (if any) changes to how it is written ... or how it is applied in LAW ... THERE.

All I see in your posts ... is YOU beating your own drum. And deaf to everything and anything else.

And curiously, neither have the Democrats, despite stating their desire to confiscate Firearms, isn't it funny - that none of them have outright stated it, almost like they know it would be political suicide and so try much more tangential and deceptive tactics....

An amendment to the 2nd will sort more than a few issues out. Otherwise ... the shit-fights continue ad nauseam

Except they wrote a large number of treatises and letters expanding on what their intent was, so not really guesswork.

Intent at the time written or a modern interpretation to suit modern views and legislation. One or the other.

A foot in both camps is never going to work. Until the legislation is clearly written without compromise or confusion ... the shit-fights will continue.

And the same ... as per the Treaty of New Zealand.

If you were observant, you'd know I'd already hinted at 2 cases: Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia

I've already mentioned my opinions of your hints. Your "Hints" are non existent bullshit. You just add or include stuff you just thought of later ... and try to appear clever.

AND FAIL.

In Particular 2 Justices putting forth the opinion that Execution itself was Cruel and Unusual and therefore unconstitutional. The subsequent case affirmed that since the Death Penalty was not considered Cruel and Unusual when the 8th amendment was written, it cannot be judged as Cruel and Unusual by todays standards.

So says a person that favours "The original intent" of the Constitution. Can a modern Government really be happy to intentionally take the life of a citizen ... just because they took the life of another first ... ??? That's not punishment ... that's retribution.

All in the name of JUSTICE.

Except I've not brokered an Argument, I've pointed to what the Supreme Court says and simply reply "This is the correct interpretation, as per the Supreme Court".

If your stated opinions differ from mine ... or your (or anybody else's) "Interpretation" differs from how I think it should be ... expect an argument.

You seek a different interpretation - and whilst I might agree with some of the points you raise about wording, practicality and the differences between now and then - what actually matters is how the Supreme Court interpret it - which is what I defer to.

I do nothing of the kind. The laws and legislation (and Constitutions) of all countries must be clear and unambiguous. Otherwise JUSTICE will be at the mercy of any particular judge's "Interpretation" of the law.

Valid reasons ... not opinions or interpretations.

Opinions are as common as ass-holes ... and often known for the amount of shit they excrete.

And translations will vary ... depending on the language being used. If your life hung on the balance of how a translator interpreted your statements in a court of law ... would you feel comfortable ... ??

[pritch]

It really does seem that Spanky has finally lost the plot.

The Chair of the Federal Reserve has made impassioned pleas for a stimulus package to prevent the US economy stalling completely.

To the horror of his campaign people Trump yesterday announced that there will be no stimulus package until after he has been reelected.

Read the tweet below and Trump's response. That was not sent by somebody 'of sound mind.'

[TheDemonLord]

Perhaps we should restrict them to be only allowed to fish from their canoes that they have to paddle out with ... as per their traditional method.

You'd be in agreement with that. The Treaty ... as per intended and meant at the time the treat was written ...

Wrong, I want one or the other.

If the standard for the Treaty is that subsequent technology and discoveries are to be included, then the Government can't compel you to sell them a Semi-Auto Rifle.
If the standard for the Treaty is that subsequent technology and discoveries are not to be included, then all those lucrative treaty-claim quotas can be sold to the highest bidder.

Pick one.

My interpretations of your posts ... may vary considerably ... ... with your ideas and opinions. Which neither of those will make any fucking difference to the United States Constitution. Or how it will (or should) be interpreted there ... nor will have any influence on those making any (if any) changes to how it is written ... or how it is applied in LAW ... THERE.

All I see in your posts ... is YOU beating your own drum. And deaf to everything and anything else.

You are trying to make the argument as to what a 'Well regulated Militia' means, I'm pointing to the US case law that clearly articulates how it is to be interpreted. I'm not saying I agree with it, only that it is the ONLY interpretation that is relevant.

Intent at the time written or a modern interpretation to suit modern views and legislation. One or the other.

A foot in both camps is never going to work. Until the legislation is clearly written without compromise or confusion ... the shit-fights will continue.

Except I've not got a foot in both camps, because I'm deferring in all cases to what the Supreme Court have ruled.

Some of the Justices take the Originalist view (intent at time of writing) some of them take the modernist view (a modern interpretion). However where there is disagreement, there are other items (such as surrounding works by the author or other documents they reference - such as the Magna Carta) that can add context as to how it should be interpreted.

Again, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this, only that it is the way it is done.

I've already mentioned my opinions of your hints. Your "Hints" are non existent bullshit. You just add or include stuff you just thought of later ... and try to appear clever.

AND FAIL.

You sure about that?

If you listen to any of Justice Scalia's lectures on Youtube (which ironically I'd been listening to before this arose) he articulates it very clearly (in line with his Originalist interpretation):

The constitution is to be read in the manner it was intended, the surrounding history of when it was written informs us as to what the intent was. Language and definitions may change over time (he gives the example of the prohibition of 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' now being read to exclude execution, whereas when written Execution was not considered Cruel nor unusual), however the intent is clear and judgements should be made in the spirit of that intent.

As I said, you should pay more attention.

So says a person that favours "The original intent" of the Constitution. Can a modern Government really be happy to intentionally take the life of a citizen ... just because they took the life of another first ... ??? That's not punishment ... that's retribution.

All in the name of JUSTICE.

The question is not whether or not one agrees with The Death Penalty, only that what was meant by 'Cruel and Unusual' does not preclude the Death Penalty in the context of the Constitution.

If your stated opinions differ from mine ... or your (or anybody else's) "Interpretation" differs from how I think it should be ... expect an argument.

Your argument is to do with what does a Well Regulated Militia mean. Mine is pointing to the authoritative source (the US Supreme Court) and saying 'This is what it means, according to the people who's opinion matters on the subject' - you seem to have an issue with that.

I do nothing of the kind. The laws and legislation (and Constitutions) of all countries must be clear and unambiguous. Otherwise JUSTICE will be at the mercy of any particular judge's "Interpretation" of the law.

Valid reasons ... not opinions or interpretations.

Opinions are as common as ass-holes ... and often known for the amount of shit they excrete.

And translations will vary ... depending on the language being used. If your life hung on the balance of how a translator interpreted your statements in a court of law ... would you feel comfortable ... ??

You should really listen to Justice Scalia expand upon that very point, his originalist view is precisely because he fears that a subjective interpretation using the definitions of words at a period in time, whereas taking a view of what the original intent was is a lot more objective.

Especially when there is a large volume of supporting material to really make it clear what the intent was - and in this case, we have that supporting material in the form of the Federalist Papers where it is explicit as to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

You may disagree with the practical application or that if that is the original intent, then the wording should be changed or perhaps even that since the US has a standing Army the entire amendment should be revised.

but what you may not do is try and argue that your interpretation trumps that of the Supreme Court.

[FJRider]

If the blah ... blah ... blah ...

All persons in New Zealand are subject to the same laws and legislation.

As I've stated in previous posts ... your interpretation of anything is (at best) unlikely to be correct.

And usually (at best) ....


BULLSHIT.

[TheDemonLord]

All persons in New Zealand are subject to the same laws and legislation.

Are they? Remember when Maori could get compliance instead of fines for certain Infringements.

As I've stated in previous posts ... your interpretation of anything is (at best) unlikely to be correct.

And usually (at best) ....


BULLSHIT.

The bit you miss is that it's not MY interpretation.

It's the Supreme court interpretation, which IS correct.

All I'm doing is referencing it.

[Viking01]

It really does seem that Spanky has finally lost the plot.

The Chair of the Federal Reserve has made impassioned pleas for a stimulus package to prevent the US economy stalling completely.

To the horror of his campaign people Trump yesterday announced that there will be no stimulus package until after he has been reelected.

Read the tweet below and Trump's response. That was not sent by somebody 'of sound mind.'

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/...the-cares-act/

[RDJ]

All persons in New Zealand are subject to the same laws and legislation.

As I've stated in previous posts ... your interpretation of anything is (at best) unlikely to be correct.

And usually (at best) ....


BULLSHIT.

You're certainly familiar with BS.

And no, all persons in New Zealand are not subject to the same laws and legislation. The Treaty and Iwi, Labour perverts, Richie H, Carl S, Boochani, the Shane Jones Corruption Fund, the Winston Peters Racetrack Funds + SFO, armed-up ethnic gangs, tribal roadblocks, etc.

[pritch]

Trump is having a bad day. The latest Rasmussen poll has him trailing Biden by twelve points. The Rasmussen poll is Trump's favourite as it usually favours Republicans. The other polls should all be worse.

[Danger Mouse]

Trump is having a bad day. The latest Rasmussen poll has him trailing Biden by twelve points. The Rasmussen poll is Trump's favourite as it usually favours Republicans. The other polls should all be worse.

I wonder if he will refuse to leave the White House if he loses

[TheDemonLord]

Trump is having a bad day. The latest Rasmussen poll has him trailing Biden by twelve points. The Rasmussen poll is Trump's favourite as it usually favours Republicans. The other polls should all be worse.

"The polls show Hilar... I mean Biden at 90% guaranteed to win."

[sugilite:Me]

Fly picks Bullshit winner in USA Vice Presidents debate.



Kamala Harris was a bit disappointing though. A fair bit of waffling bullshit from that side of the debate too.

[TheDemonLord]

Fly picks Bullshit winner in USA VP debate

Kamala Harris was a bit disappointing though. A fair bit of waffling bullshit from that side of the debate too.

Still, it was nice to have a civilized debate

[sugilite:Me]

Yep, this, definitely this.

[sugilite:Me]

Putin nominates and endorses his pick for the United States Presidency - Donald trump.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...ssian-rhetoric

[pritch]

For anyone who still thinks Trump's tweets don't influence anything. What a collection of MAGAts. I'll post pics later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...f1a_story.html


They should charge the idiot in chief with being an accessory.