- This topic has 101 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ubiq
Unfortunately seems we are barely arguing anymore
I never said it’s a magic get out of jail free card. I said it’s my opinion that they had the legal right to do what they did based on my chosen understanding of the second amendment. My OPINION.
Why didn’t anyone use it as a defense?
1) don’t know if anyone who was rioting has any clue this exists
2) I fully agree that ultimately a court will be deciding.
I think it has a zero percent chance of winning in court ( perhaps even less as it might tick off the judge / jury and make the penalty worse)
So yeah it wouldn’t be sound legal advice to tell someone to use this as a defense
Doesn’t change my opinion that it is true though
I think politically if a court agreed to such a thing it would unleash who knows what.So I think In summary
We are arguing whether this is the correct interpretation of the second amendment.
But if it is
We both agree using it here would be an application of the law, not the law itself.
We both agree it would end up in court
We both agree the defendant would lose.
So what are we arguing about?I like spicy cholent
“Unfortunately seems we are barely arguing anymore”
Thats great!
I would phrase the summary slightly differently, we disagree if there theoretically is such a law.
We agree that practically speaking there isn’t .as you said “We both agree the defendant would lose.”“So what are we arguing about?”
Two minor points (in addition to whether there theoretically exists suc ha law, which of course there isn’t , though to be fair some scholars say what you say) though one I’m less sure about
namely
1) IF a law only exists in theory but not in practice does that law exist? I say of course not.
Like according to the man deamaor that An Ir hanidachas could never happen, ie it doesn’t exist (lehavdil). there is no such thinkg as ir hanidachas So what’s the point? Lilmod ulekabel sechar (note: not just in case it ever does happen, according to this man deamaor that is not a thing) .
Lehavdil in the constitution there is no such thing as “Lilmod ulekabel sechar” There is no theoretical law if it can’t happen in real life, then it isn’t a law, in fact the court won’t even rule on theoretical cases- I grant that reasonable people can disagree on this point
2) The fact that it has never happened PROOVES that this interpretation isn’t correct. How could no one have made this claim before (in fact the court has ruled the reverse ,that there is no right to secede, and there are laws limiting the 1st amendment wehn it comes to talk of overthrow the government) ? – I’m less sure about this, I think it weakens your contention but granted it isnt proof.“I like spicy cholent”
me too! see you then
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.