Funny thing is you don’t post with an academic style of writing - not saying that you don’t have those qualifications but just that your posting style is not evidence of an academic background
I do, but you wouldn't understand it. Anything claiming to "debunk . . ." generally falls into the partisan poppycock category.
this is a message board, not a scholarly educational site. do you wear a ball gown when you go to a fast food diner? now what are YOUR credentials to tell me that Raskaturd is correct and we who dispute his bullshit are wrong.
Meh! Academic writing is a habit hard to break after a while and I do not and will never discuss my academic qualifications instead letting my writing style speak for itself since there is no way of verifying any qualifications claimed. As an example I once had someone claim to be a qualified physicist whilst at the same time claiming that climate change was due to “earth moving into a warmer part of space”
so I will find that since you offer NO examples of expertise, you have none. Raskin isn't here to defend the steaming pile of excrement you have tried to argue as your proxy. Since you concede you have no expertise, you cannot possibly argue with ANY merit, that Raskin's argument is sound.
Not at all; it's evolved over a couple or decades. Generally people interested in discussing/debating a topic avoid flame words. For instance, I generally click next on any post using the :tRump" word. There are some LW posters that actually want to talk/debate; sadly that number is dwindling quickly. And yes there are some righties I ignore as well. As a side light any claim that climatology is a "settled science" well usually draw a dismissive Cya. As will "soak the rich", and a few others.
I have been for years! maybe she can get Raskin to actually show up here. I'd pity da fool if he did!
Raskin uses solid referenced citation to back his arguments. THAT is what I mean by “academic writing and I will take that over the all too frequent posts on this board that boil down to “I don fink so” and of course the ever present logical fallacies such as the current attempted use of “poisoning the well”. I note that you have not addressed Raskin’s arguments
He made stuff up and quoted other liars. Why don't you tell us your expertise that allows you to claim that Raskin is correct. I think he's full of manure. and most leading constitutional scholars think Raskin is oozing bullshit
Then point out which parts he “made up”. I even posted the guide to the various points within the podcast so people could easily do that. This is what I mean about academic writing. It is breaking down the opponents arguments in a structured rebuttal
Heh. Let's see: 00:00 Does the 2nd Amendment give people the right to overthrow the government with insurrections? No. It guarantees their access to the means to so do 04:56 This interpretation of the constitution is an excuse for not passing gun reform The 2nd Amendment interpretations from Miller on drastically limits what gun reforms are constitutionally permissible 11:15 The constitution treats insurrection as a serious and dangerous offense That's nice. See: 00:00 14:36 Forming a militia and attacking the government is unconstitutional and qualifies as treason That's nice. See: 00:00 27:10 The 2nd Amendment is not unlimited True. It is only mostly so, as it prevents the government from infringing in the right to keep and bear arms. The limits on government restrictions are spelled out in 2A interpretations from Miller on drastically limits what gun reforms are constitutionally permissible 31:46 Q&A start 33:54 Our lone-wolf shooters are anything but a well-regulated militia That's nice. So what? 37:00 Why did conservatives change their tune in the last 15 years? Since 2009? They haven;t. In the highlights you presented, there's nothing new, meaningful or interesting - seen it all, negated it all, got the T-shirt. That you think this video, and the person making the argument in it, is somehow special, groundbreaking, or some amazing epiphany only reinforces my characterization of your "credentials".
see post 115 and this one First of all, the second confers nothing-it merely reiterates that the federal government cannot infringe on a right that the founders held that free citizens had since the dawn of man. See Cruikshank-the right does not come from the constitution rather the second amendment merely recognizes it. The Collective defense idiocy is not even accepted by the DISSENT in Heller. It is a fiction created by racist lower court judges after reconstruction. No Supreme Court case has ever adopted the "collective rights" nonsense-NOT EVEN FDR's lapdog court (which did not dismiss the gun owner's position based on standing)
You keep throwing that term around as if you actually have the capacity to understand what it means. Again, WTF are YOUR credentials in this subject matter.
Lols so you are relying on other peoples rebuttal? Lucky for you they are not on my ignore list. It does affirm my suspicion that you may not have watched the podcast yourself which is a pity since Raskin outlines where and what legislation he is currently proposing
I am not going to waste my time listening to the same bullshit over and over. I know what that pompous POS is going to say, I have researched his lies and disinformation. Since you admit you dont' have the education or knowledge to explain why Raskin is right, why should we argue with a proxy whose claims you cannot defend as being accurate. We already know that he holds a discredited an never valid collective "rights" position which has been thoroughly rejected by almost every leading constitutional scholar including leading lefties including: Laurence Tribe (Harvard) Sanford Levinson (U of Texas) Akhil Reed Amar (Yale) and William Van Alstyne (Duke) EVEN THE DISSENT in Heller has rejected it https://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html According to Justice Stevens, "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an additional dissent, which was joined by the same four justices who participated in the Stevens dissent. Justice Breyer wrote, "I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today's opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an 'individual' right--i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred." So all nine justices agreed that the Second Amendment protects some sort of individual right. In contrast, the "collective right" theory asserts that there is no individual right. Where did such a strange theory come from, and why did it become so popular in the media, academia and the lower federal courts? https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4347&context=flr
Here is another scholarly destruction of the collective rights bs. I cannot copy and paste from it though https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2550&context=facpub
Some more evidence on the collective rights nonsense being nonsense https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3285&context=dlr This article predicts that the collective right theory of the Second Amendment will not survive. It examines the collective right theory and the brief history of its rise to relative prominence in legal thought and policy. Next, this article delves into claims made by collective right proponents in the academy and exposes them as untenable. Finally, it concludes that the theory is unrealistic, ideologically driven, and too poorly explained by its own adherents to justify its continued existence in American jurisprudence.
