They make *what* for kids!?

[Hathradic States]

It granted businesses rights they previously did not have.

The sad part is, anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional law history wouldn't have even asked that question because of the immediately obvious example that springs to the mind of anyone who has ever taken a constitutional law class.

I assume you would be referring to slavery, no?

[Mavorpen]

Well, considering we've presented our argument several times without anyone being able to provide substantial arguments against it...

Stop lying.

viewtopic.php?p=14278717#p14278717

Feel free to show me where said reply is.

[Neo Art]

The sad part is, anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional law history wouldn't have even asked that question because of the immediately obvious example that springs to the mind of anyone who has ever taken a constitutional law class.

I assume you would be referring to slavery, no?

What? No. Of course not. What a monsterously stupid idea. Why would you even think that? God no. The ratification of the 13th amendment made any federal decision upholding the constitutionality of the institution of slavery moot. Did you really think I didn't know that?

Here's a hint. Unlike yours, my knowledge of the history of constitutional jurisprudence is ever so slightly more advanced than the bit they teach in highschool history class.

[United Dependencies]

It granted businesses rights they previously did not have.

The sad part is, anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional law history wouldn't have even asked that question because of the immediately obvious example that springs to the mind of anyone who has ever taken a constitutional law class.

Oh...well

I'm just an undergrad. The last time I heard about important SCOTUS cases was in a high school civics&econ class.

[Hathradic States]

Business's aren't people.

Because it grants more rights, to put it simply. Once you have justified why something is a right, it is damn difficult to say why it isn't.

Word that does not appear in the above: people.

You are really, really, REALLY bad at this.

We are speaking of the individual right to own firearms. Anybody with a middleschoolers intelligence would know that we aren't referring to the rights of businesses in this discussion. That you couldn't figure that out on your own speaks ill of you.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Go back and read the thread.

You've made no valid arguments.

In your opinion. At least I have my own argument rather than just falling back on "but the supreme court says so!".

[Sociobiology]

The court is wrong, and I suggest you actually read the amendment... I've posted it Probably a dozen times i the thread.

Okey. Pop quiz.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Please define the emphasized word using your own words.

well it the constitution it means adult citizens
Persons means all humans within the purview of the country.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Stop lying.

viewtopic.php?p=14278717#p14278717

Feel free to show me where said reply is.

So you said this once.
After a long conversation with Gallo-.
And it was only you.

1) Why exactly were you using the "we" in there?
2) Where is this 'several times' business you referenced? Previous replies with Gallo- I assume?
3) Militia is made up of militiamen. Your argument is essentially that used in Heller. I am confused how this is some kind of gun-control argument.

[Hathradic States]

I assume you would be referring to slavery, no?

What? No. Of course not. What a monsterously stupid idea. Why would you even think that? God no. The ratification of the 13th amendment made any federal decision upholding the constitutionality of the institution of slavery moot. Did you really think I didn't know that?

Here's a hint. Unlike yours, my knowledge of the history of constitutional jurisprudence is ever so slightly more advanced than the bit they teach in highschool history class.

Making sure we were on the same page with that one. Some people...well, they are stupid, believe it or not.

That's nice. I'll work on improving mine when I don't have bigger concerns going on. For now, kindly state your example, to enlighten me, oh wise one.

[United Dependencies]

We are speaking of the individual right to own firearms. Anybody with a middleschoolers intelligence would know that we aren't referring to the rights of businesses in this discussion. That you couldn't figure that out on your own speaks ill of you.

You were asked why SCOTUS was wrong in Dred Scott but not in Heller.

Your justification was:it granted more rights.

You said nothing about rights for individuals.

[Neo Art]

Anybody with a middleschoolers intelligence would know that we aren't referring to the rights of businesses in this discussion.

I think it takes a child to comprehend the little frolic your logic path went on, when you insisted that the court had not overturned a prior granting of rights, that you really meant "but I didn't mean business rights when I said that!"

After all, getting caught with your pants down demonstrating a profound ignorance of the thing you are professing to understand, and then whining that nobody understands your brilliance, in a desperate, and fundamentally futile, attempt to save face, is something a middleschooler would do, yes.

Which is why, apparently, you find yourself having a lot in common with one.

That you couldn't figure that out on your own speaks ill of you.

I mean, if you hang around the sort of people where "you don't think like a child" is considered an insult, and not a compliment, I guess.

I don't, so..ya know, I'll have to take your word for it. I spend my time around adults.

[Mavorpen]

So you said this once.
After a long conversation with Gallo-.
And it was only you.

1) Why exactly were you using the "we" in there?

I don't know if you're aware, but Neo Art was arguing the same claim with Gallo. You should probably read the thread.

2) Where is this 'several times' business you referenced? Previous replies with Gallo- I assume?

Yes.

3) Militia is made up of militiamen. Your argument is essentially that used in Heller. I am confused how this is some kind of gun-control argument.

Again, read through the discussion.

[Sociobiology]

You've made no valid arguments.

In your opinion. At least I have my own argument rather than just falling back on "but the supreme court says so!".

when the question is about constitutional law relying on the supreme court, the ultimate authority on the subject, is more than reasonable.

you are basically saying we should not listen to doctors about medical matters, or scientists about science.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

So the supreme court is infallible only when you agree with it?

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

So you're just saying that you're incapable of intelligently defending your position?

[Hathradic States]

In your opinion. At least I have my own argument rather than just falling back on "but the supreme court says so!".

when the question is about constitutional law relying on the supreme court, the ultimate authority on the subject, is more than reasonable.

you are basically saying we should not listen to doctors about medical matters, or scientists about science.

Don't remind them of that. They get pissier than they already are.

[Neo Art]

Some people...well, they are stupid, believe it or not.

noooooooooo. You don't say.

That's nice. I'll work on improving mine when I don't have bigger concerns going on.

Perhaps so. In the meantime, you may consider withdrawing from any conversation on topics you don't know anything about.

I mean, you CAN keep doing it, if you want to, you're just going to keep embarassing yourself though. But you don't really seem to have a problem with that.

For now, kindly state your example, to enlighten me, oh wise one.

What, and miss the fun? I've already stumbled into one, quite unintentionally in fact, and it still stands, despite your flailing around trying to demonstrate otherwise.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

It upheld certain rights for businesses.

Business's aren't people.

The supreme court disagrees.

[Mavorpen]

In your opinion. At least I have my own argument rather than just falling back on "but the supreme court says so!".

when the question is about constitutional law relying on the supreme court, the ultimate authority on the subject, is more than reasonable.

you are basically saying we should not listen to doctors about medical matters, or scientists about science.

Socio, there's a difference in this case. When you present scientific evidence, typically you argue why it applies and how it substantiates your argument. You don't just throw sources and pretend as though you've won. Similarly, you don't throw out a Supreme Court case and throw your hands up waiting for applause as though you've won without actually explaining why that piece of evidence is correct and applies.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

So you're just saying that you're incapable of intelligently defending your position?

I believe he's saying something along the lines of this:

BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!

Should I highlight it? Perhaps have a nice dark background a bright pink wording to make it 'pop'?

[Hathradic States]

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

So you're just saying that you're incapable of intelligently defending your position?

No, I am merely saying that this is the one bloody place I don't have to. Just like how atheist don't have to prove a god doesn't exist and trans folk don't have to prove they need rights.

[Neo Art]

when the question is about constitutional law relying on the supreme court, the ultimate authority on the subject, is more than reasonable.

you are basically saying we should not listen to doctors about medical matters, or scientists about science.

Don't remind them of that. They get pissier than they already are.

So you agree you should listen to doctors about medicine, and scienctists about science? Do you also agree then you should listen to lawyers regarding the law?

[United Dependencies]

It granted businesses rights they previously did not have.

The sad part is, anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional law history wouldn't have even asked that question because of the immediately obvious example that springs to the mind of anyone who has ever taken a constitutional law class.

OHHhhh

I think I know what you're talking about now.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Don't remind them of that. They get pissier than they already are.

So you agree you should listen to doctors about medicine, and scienctists about science? Do you also agree then you should listen to lawyers regarding the law?

Sure.

Five of the most preeminent lawyers in the US have stated the opinion of the Supreme Court of the land.

They outrank you.

[United Dependencies]

So you agree you should listen to doctors about medicine, and scienctists about science? Do you also agree then you should listen to lawyers regarding the law?

Only if they confirm what we already "know".

[Hathradic States]

Don't remind them of that. They get pissier than they already are.

So you agree you should listen to doctors about medicine, and scienctists about science? Do you also agree then you should listen to lawyers regarding the law?

Oh yes. Just not the ones I meet on the internet.