Latest Breaking News

SunSeeker

(58,364 posts)

158. I think Constitutional scholars hold the position of the Heller dissent.

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 08:22 PM

Jul 2015

The 2nd Amendment was about establishing well regulated citizen militias to prevent the need for a standing army. They feared standing armies and citizens being forced to "quarter" soldiers on their property. So I and many Constitutional scholars see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the individual right not to have to put up with a standing army.

There is no indication that the founders viewed guns as special and thought this amendment was to protect gun ownership outside of well regulated militias.

Sadly, Scalia ignored precedent and the plain text of the 2nd Amendment, and thanks to his 4 right wing buddies on the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment was amended by order of the Supreme Court to create an "individual right to guns" in one of the sickest bits of judicial activism in history. But that is now the law, and most people have accepted it. Dems are just accepting political reality.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

231 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Aurora Victim�s Parents Face Bankruptcy After Suing Online Ammo Dealers, Vow To Change Colorado Law [View all] angka Jul 2015 OP

They knew what the law was when they chose to sue bluestateguy Jul 2015 #1

You are defending this law? Geebus... hlthe2b Jul 2015 #2

There is much defense of the indefensible here at the so-called "Underground" villager Jul 2015 #3

I am only pointing out that the law is what it is bluestateguy Jul 2015 #4

Way to totally miss the point... hlthe2b Jul 2015 #5

The lawyer filing the suit on their behalf should have (probably must have) Hoppy Jul 2015 #8

If the lawyer did not warn them... jberryhill Jul 2015 #15

Bingo. McCamy Taylor Jul 2015 #16

Yes. The lawyer should not have taken this case and put this family at such financial risk. nt Mojorabbit Jul 2015 #121

Are you defending the law giving blanket immunity to gun manufacturers? Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #57

The law TeddyR Jul 2015 #70

You are misrepresenting what the PLCAA does. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #80

That is simply untrue TeddyR Jul 2015 #86

Why did gun manufacturers need this exemption from product liability law? SunSeeker Jul 2015 #90

Because the plan in place by Handgun Control Inc was to file lawsuit after lawsuit Telcontar Jul 2015 #93

If the lawsuits were meritless or frivolous, they could have gotten sanctions. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #94

No, they couldn't Telcontar Jul 2015 #100

Yes they could. Rule 11 in federal court and CCP 128.5 in CA court allow sanctions. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #103

Do you believe the bullshit you utter? Telcontar Jul 2015 #109

It is not bullshit. It is basic products liability law. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #112

Yeah, okay Telcontar Jul 2015 #132

Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #137

Your shouting does not make what I said bullshit. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #138

alert results irisblue Jul 2015 #142

Thanks, irisblue. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #143

You need a refresher on basic products liability law. branford Jul 2015 #144

Nope, I'm good. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #145

Are you really claiming that products explicitly protected branford Jul 2015 #146

Not mere "potential" misuse. Readily foreseeable misuse by the very nature of the design. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #148

Wrong. X_Digger Jul 2015 #133

I'm correct, and the part you have in bold proves it. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #134

"It explicitly does exempt gun manufacturers from full liability for defective products" X_Digger Jul 2015 #136

You just erased the part you previously highlighted, that gave them immunity for criminal acts. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #139

Forget it, you're being willfully obtuse. See the post above about an actual lawsuit for.. X_Digger Jul 2015 #150

Nope, you are ignoring the craven text of PLCAA. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #151

Reality trumps your "interpretation". X_Digger Jul 2015 #153

You're arguing with something I did not say. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #154

Who said, "It explicitly does exempt gun manufacturers from full liability for defective products"? X_Digger Jul 2015 #155

Full liability means all product liability grounds that any other product manufacturer would face. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #157

Go ahead, try to sue Chevy when a drunk driving a Camaro plows into your car. X_Digger Jul 2015 #165

You do not understand product liability law nor the PLCAA. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #166

Brakes overheating is a PRODUCT DEFECT.. X_Digger Jul 2015 #167

So is a civilian weapon designed to mow down dozens of people in seconds. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #169

There is no such thing. beevul Jul 2015 #178

Spare me the mansplaining. It is a military weapon that is now marketed as a civilian weapon. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #181

Factual correctness is not mansplaining. beevul Jul 2015 #183

Virtually all weapons have some military pedigree, branford Jul 2015 #188

You repeatedly offer your opinion as a substitute for fact and accepted jurisprudence. branford Jul 2015 #180

So, when a flying piece of metal at high velocity kills or injurs somebody, ... stone space Jul 2015 #193

It's not a design defect if it functioned as intended, but was used criminally. branford Jul 2015 #210

"perhaps we should look to see what design defect allowed that to happen." EX500rider Jul 2015 #219

Cite me the polls that show "vast public support" for the PLCAA. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #196

Thread winner. You just accused a seasoned lawyer of 'mistating...the law". Just wow. beevul Jul 2015 #199

AR-15s are military weapons. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #202

Your own cite disproves you. beevul Jul 2015 #205

No it doesn't. Making it semi-automatic just made it legal to sell to civilians. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #208

Nope. Making it semi-auto removes the military function. beevul Jul 2015 #212

It is historically a military weapon; marketing it to civilians does not change this fact. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #217

Put down the goalposts. beevul Jul 2015 #223

"It is still an air-cooled barrel designed to spew out large amounts of bullets in rapid succession" EX500rider Jul 2015 #218

No, not like all firearms. It's barrel is made to withstand the heat of prolonged rapid fire. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #220

No, like all modern firearms... EX500rider Jul 2015 #221

You're just making shit up and ignoring my links. No point in this conversation. Buh bye. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #222

I'm not the one ignorant of the subject. EX500rider Jul 2015 #226

If you or others believe the Second Amendment is harmful or no longer serves a purpose, branford Jul 2015 #201

Don't need to repeal the 2nd Am., just change out one right wing justice for a Dem appointee. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #204

Even if Heller and its progeny disappeared tomorrow, little would change. branford Jul 2015 #209

A lot would change with a Dem majority on the Supreme Court. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #211

It's still democracy even when you lose. branford Jul 2015 #214

Now we get to the crux of the matter, and where you go off the rails. X_Digger Jul 2015 #227

Selling an AR-15 with a 100-round magazines and 6,000 bullets to a nut online is "Fucking stupid." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #229

OMG a semi-auto gun! Scawwy! And it's painted black, so it's sooo much more dangerous. X_Digger Jul 2015 #230

They should have thought of this possibility 25 years ago, BEFORE their daughter was conceived lostnfound Jul 2015 #14

+ 1 MILLION appalachiablue Jul 2015 #49

I had no idea this site had republicans. trillion Jul 2015 #96

Oh look! The "you're a republican" remark. How quaint. (nt) Inkfreak Jul 2015 #108

Quaintness does not deny accuracy. LanternWaste Jul 2015 #114

Oh...it's you. Inkfreak Jul 2015 #131

Nor does it denote accuracy. beevul Jul 2015 #147

As you have seen... malokvale77 Jul 2015 #101

Jessica... Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #6

And such an attitude is the very reason why the plaintiffs have a judgment against them. branford Jul 2015 #11

This law is just a sick representation of weapons manufacturers and sellers bullying of the victims Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #18

How did a weapons manufacturer or a seller TeddyR Jul 2015 #74

Manufacturers are routinely held liable for damages caused by their legal products. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #91

Manufacturers are most certainly not held liable for the CRIMINAL misuse branford Jul 2015 #92

That's what the PLCAA was enacted to do, even when that criminal misuse was foreseeable. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #95

If you or anyone else believes no individual -needs- any particular firearm branford Jul 2015 #102

Spare me the bullshit reading of the 2nd Am foisted on us by Scalia. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #104

The Democratic Party and the president disagree with you hack89 Jul 2015 #106

Sadly, because of Heller, that is now the law. Dems and Obama are just accepting that fact. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #113

They didn't have to specifically put it in the party platform. hack89 Jul 2015 #117

It is acknowledging reality. Period. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #119

So you really think they don't think the 2A protects an individual right hack89 Jul 2015 #123

Ooh, ooh, can I answer? TeddyR Jul 2015 #127

I think Constitutional scholars hold the position of the Heller dissent. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #158

As Englishmen, the founders enjoyed an individual right to bear arms hack89 Jul 2015 #159

The provision was about maintaining citizen militias, not deification of guns. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #160

Not the right they enjoyed as Englishmen - that was an individual right to bear arms hack89 Jul 2015 #161

No, America's problem is gun nuts making shit up and stopping common sense gun control. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #162

We didn't get UBCs because it was bundled with registration and an AWB hack89 Jul 2015 #163

No, we didn't get UBC because 45 senators blocked the majority. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #164

Are you suddenly concerned with will of the majority? branford Jul 2015 #171

90% of Americans want universal background checks, not expanded concealed carry. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #174

We live in a democratic republic. branford Jul 2015 #184

I said the manufacturers were bullying the VICTIMS of gun violence!! Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #130

Just because the Republican-led Congress passed the PLCAA doesn't make it a good law. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #21

The federal law was passed with significant Democratic support in both Houses of Congress, branford Jul 2015 #22

Sanders also voted against the Brady bill, so his support of the PLCAA doesn't impress me. pnwmom Jul 2015 #27

Oh please. Republican Larry "Wide Stance " Craig sponsored that craven bill. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #28

time to require insurance on guns to cover the damage gun owners do to society nt msongs Jul 2015 #7

Insurance is designed to cover personal liability, not societal damage. branford Jul 2015 #12

/\ This deathrind Jul 2015 #32

Will your insurance company pay for criminal acts hack89 Jul 2015 #52

Galling. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #9

Except that's not what actually happened or what the law states. branford Jul 2015 #13

Bull. And it is the gun manufacturers who resort to "emotional, wildly inaccurate hyperbole." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #25

"Gun manufacturers know they are selling to nut cases" EX500rider Jul 2015 #118

Gun dealers are gun manufacturers' craven middlemen. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #120

You're either licenced it sell guns or you're not... EX500rider Jul 2015 #122

It's not all of them, it's a small minority who are very obvious. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #126

Guns is sooooo special. flamin lib Jul 2015 #10

No, this is what happens when Personal Injury Lawyers ... MicaelS Jul 2015 #24

Well TeddyR Jul 2015 #77

Are you upset that you are protected as an FFL holder sarisataka Jul 2015 #78

9/11!! Nine Eleventy!!etc changed everything!!ish Electric Monk Jul 2015 #224

If the gun dealers try to collect, there will almost certainly be a political backlash McCamy Taylor Jul 2015 #17

There's no real risk in collecting against the plaintiffs. branford Jul 2015 #20

Not surprised they would get left high and dry Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #19

My prediction: Dr. Strange Jul 2015 #55

The cynical Brady Center put these parents up to it and now won't pay the bill. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #23

Link to the "Brady Center putting them up to it" please. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #26

Will this link work? Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #34

No. Fuck the Washinton Times. I won't even click on that Moonie paper. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #50

Alright, here is a much better one Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #62

That does NOT say the Brady Center "put them up to it." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #63

Do you consider it relevant sarisataka Jul 2015 #64

Sure. This is a report from the LA Times. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #53

The headline and picture caption says the family filed it and it was the family's lawsuit. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #65

Lol, wut? X_Digger Jul 2015 #135

I don't deny the Brady Center helped, just that there's no evidence they "put them up to it." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #140

The father, the Brady Center Employee? You sure you want to stick with that? n/t X_Digger Jul 2015 #152

I will until there's evidence that the Brady Center "put them up to it." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #156

And then there is the Brady Bunch themselves. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #54

You think the Brady campaign does not deserve the support of Democrats?? You mock them...interesting Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #58

They jumped the shark a long time ago. Stunts like this don't make sense. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #60

Understood. The "Brady Bunch", as you call them, bad, gun manufacturers, good. Got it! Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #61

Okie dokie, Fred. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #66

My take TeddyR Jul 2015 #79

The press release makes clear that it was filed "on behalf of" the Phillips family. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #67

Pro-tip: this lawsuit had nothing to do with the sale of guns to anyone. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #73

More factless assertions on your part. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #76

Don't they both work for the Brady Center? tammywammy Jul 2015 #71

They probably will pay eventually unless the plan was to financially self-emulate the whole time... aikoaiko Jul 2015 #84

The ammosexuals on this thread make me ill. nt valerief Jul 2015 #29

Nasty references to sex and guns make me ill. MicaelS Jul 2015 #30

It's their go-to insult. NaturalHigh Jul 2015 #33

It is very childish Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #39

The desire to make sexual references in regards to a mere object seems LanternWaste Jul 2015 #115

Please, I don't care about your silly rant. Goodbye forever. nt valerief Jul 2015 #35

Typical n/t MicaelS Jul 2015 #38

Don't like being called out on your insults Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #40

Is the typical TeddyR Jul 2015 #87

Insults directed at DU members make me ill Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #37

Ironically, I'm not, nor ever have been, a gun owner. It's my choice. branford Jul 2015 #42

I didn't provide arguments. You have me confused with someone else. valerief Jul 2015 #43

The passive-aggressive voice and the cut and paste from the NRA is transparent. How cute they think Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #59

I suppose you can provide specific examples of your "cut and paste" accusation? Marengo Jul 2015 #215

You obviously do not know but your own post is passive-aggressive. A gun lover, I presume? Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #216

"Cut and paste" has a specific definition. Your usage of it would indicate you can provide... Marengo Jul 2015 #228

Who exactly TeddyR Jul 2015 #83

In response to me TeddyR Jul 2015 #128

+1 Electric Monk Jul 2015 #225

Me too. trillion Aug 2015 #231

Isn't it pretty common for the complainant... NaturalHigh Jul 2015 #31

No. branford Jul 2015 #44

default in UK and Canada is Angel Martin Jul 2015 #51

It's something I would change in the law in order to give juries the task also of deciding if a case 24601 Jul 2015 #105

Determining if a claim is legally frivolous is an issue of law, not fact, branford Jul 2015 #129

As is the poor refusing to bring a valid lawsuit to bear for fear of bankruptcy. LanternWaste Jul 2015 #116

Brady Center attorneys were the ones that filed the lawsuit MichMan Jul 2015 #36

I would think they should pay Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #41

Although they suffered a terrible tragedy, the Philips' were not innocent dupes in the litigation. branford Jul 2015 #46

Yes, I know Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #47

Except the gun control / rights issue is so established and polarizing branford Jul 2015 #48

Nope. Attorneys don't pay a judgment when the client loses. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #72

The attorney's filed it on behalf of the Phillips family, who were the plaintiffs. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #69

Lawyers should be held accountable MichMan Jul 2015 #45

What makes you think this family was unaware of the risks? SunSeeker Jul 2015 #75

Your 5 year old being ripped apart in their schoolroom by bullets from an assault rifle...makes you Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #110

Exactly. Compassion and empathy is why I am a Democrat. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #111

The insane Colorado law giving blanket immunity to gun factories from even filing of a suit would have to Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #56

In addition to the specific law sarisataka Jul 2015 #68

You're very good on spelling out what the law is... RandySF Jul 2015 #81

I have no issue sarisataka Jul 2015 #85

Typical of how gun humpers work. RandySF Jul 2015 #82

So the state TeddyR Jul 2015 #88

Yes, I would call the State of CO a gun jumper for passing this law. RandySF Jul 2015 #89

I think you nailed it with gun humper. trillion Jul 2015 #99

+1000 trillion Jul 2015 #98

Wow, can someone recommend a liberal site? trillion Jul 2015 #97

LOL SunSeeker Jul 2015 #141

Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #107

this is the law many corps added so they can't be sued. the law people were worried about trade TPP Sunlei Jul 2015 #124

Wow, this really turned into a debate here. angka Jul 2015 #125

Both parents are paid employees of the brady campaign. beevul Jul 2015 #149

Did it ever occur to you that these parents joined the Brady Center to try to stop gun violence? SunSeeker Jul 2015 #170

That doesn't change the fact that they knew full well what they were getting into... beevul Jul 2015 #172

The PLCAA is "ethically, morally and legally bankrupt." SunSeeker Jul 2015 #173

No. beevul Jul 2015 #175

A product liability suit is the proper purview of the courts. nt SunSeeker Jul 2015 #176

Not for misuse of a correctly functioning constitutionally protected device, it isn't. N/T beevul Jul 2015 #177

It is defective if it is an unreasonably dangerous design. SunSeeker Jul 2015 #179

Its not an unreasonably dangerous design. beevul Jul 2015 #182

When was the cigarette designed? stone space Jul 2015 #190

I don't know, is smoking misuse of the cigarette? beevul Jul 2015 #192

The Tobacco companies had problems mainly because they failed to disclose branford Jul 2015 #197

Morally bankrupt? stone space Jul 2015 #187

Do you actually listen to yourself? beevul Jul 2015 #191

The manufacturer turned around and attacked the gun victims, with your cheering and support. stone space Jul 2015 #195

Most people call that defending themselves legally after being attacked legally. beevul Jul 2015 #198

Your hatred for gun victims is noted. stone space Jul 2015 #200

They didn't attack anyone. The manufacturers themselves were attacked legally. beevul Jul 2015 #203

No, I "hate" it when litigants abuse the judicial system with clearly meritless claims branford Jul 2015 #206

You confuse being a fool with being an immoral asshole. stone space Jul 2015 #207

Moral people don't knowingly abuse the legal system by bringing meritless claims branford Jul 2015 #213

Demonizing gun victims over their employment? stone space Jul 2015 #185

Full disclosure of the facts, and the parents ties is demonization? beevul Jul 2015 #186

You bring up their employment as if it is a scandal. stone space Jul 2015 #189

Nope. beevul Jul 2015 #194

they should setup.a gofundme account Liberal_in_LA Jul 2015 #168