Thread: 9th Circuit Incorporates 2nd Amdmt (and forecloses a "living Constitution" to boot!)

Originally Posted by John Galt

Perhaps you'd like to try again, this time with a detailed criticism of this opinion instead of an ad hominem argument that served no purpose whatsoever.


Oh, I don't know if that was really necessary. Sometimes people say things so... well, sometimes just preserving ignorance in all its glory is punishment enough.

your first sentence is what he could have done to avoid the infraction

Originally Posted by coqauvin

your first sentence is what he could have done to avoid the infraction

Sorry, the hyperbole of "whatever the fuck that means" got me distracted. OP was too busy being angsty and emo to make a clear statement regarding his ability to tell the difference between the two. Not my fault if his heavy handed rhetoric confused my ability to tell if he really knew the difference between a collective right and an individual right.

I was equally confused by his decision that the "nutty ninth" as it were has somehow foreclosed the notion of a living constitution any more/less than all previous decisions to come before any court making calls based on constitutionality. Maybe I'm high, but have judges suddenly started ruling "living constitution!" instead of merely battling it out on issues of jurisprudence? Is this changing the status quo whatsoever? The decision was made at the Supreme Court level in DC v. Heller -- all the Ninth is doing is aligning itself so that the cases don't make repeat appeals.

And I find it interesting that *I* get to be nailed on ad hominem, while the OP's post contains numerous examples of implicit ad hom attacks (related to notions of common sense and reason) on previous "nutty Ninth" decisions to ultimately deliver a news report with little conversational value. OP made a pretty posting of a statement of fact with very little to discuss -- either we cheer with the OP and rally against the nutty Ninth, or we sit on our hands and say, "yup, that's how the court decided." There ain't discussion here, just baiting.

Originally Posted by ollie cromwell

And I find it interesting that *I* get to be nailed on ad hominem, while the OP's post contains numerous examples of implicit ad hom attacks (related to notions of common sense and reason) on previous "nutty Ninth" decisions to ultimately deliver a news report with little conversational value. OP made a pretty posting of a statement of fact with very little to discuss -- either we cheer with the OP and rally against the nutty Ninth, or we sit on our hands and say, "yup, that's how the court decided." There ain't discussion here, just baiting.

The OP may not be a model OP, but criticizing, or even insulting, a government institution such as a isn't the same as making an ad hom attack against a fellow poster. When a mod gives someone an infraction for an ad hom attack, the offense they click on is "insulted another member", not "insulted anyone, including the Ninth Circuit Court". John Galt, yourself, and any other poster is free to say whatever horribly insulting things you want about a court or it's decisions, or any other government agency or institution, or any law or governmental policy, or any politician or public figure, or whatever--just don't say them about each other. If the OP wants to editorialize about how he thinks the Ninth has made bad rulings in the past, that's not against any rule.

As for what there is to discuss in this thread, I think it's obvious: This thread is for discussion of the ruling, and the idea of incorporating the 2nd Amendment. People are free to share their opinions on these issues, and debate them. That's implicitly clear. The OP doesn't have to explicitly say, "So what do you guys think about this?" at the end of his post in order for a thread to have something to discuss. You are presenting a false dilemma when you say that all you can do is rally with the OP, or sit on your hands and accept the court's decision. You have plenty of other options: You can, for instance, explain why you disagree with the court's decision or why you think the OP's position is flawed. You can disagree as strongly as you like with the decision or the OP's argument. You can rail against them if you like. Just don't make a post that doesn't say anything about the issue, and only contains an ad hom attack.

I'd like this to be the last post in this thread about whether the OP was good or not. Any reasonable person can see that there is plenty of opportunity for discussion in this thread; just make a post saying "I think this is a bad decision and here's why". Discussion and debate will ensue between those who agree with the decision, and those that don't.