You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #39: Red Herring [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
bongbong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. Red Herring
It's clear what "well-regulated" means from FP #29. FP #46 doesn't mention it, nor does it contradict the definition from FP #29. Obviously the words "well-regulated" were put into the 2nd Amendment for a reason. And FP #29 makes it clear what that phrase means.

The rest of your quotes, points, etc are completely irrelevant to the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

You'll have to do a lot better than that. Maybe you can do a little mind-reading of what the Founding Fathers "really" meant when they wrote the Constitution. That's usually the next step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Oklahomas Ban on Shariah Law in Court Is Blocked Scurrilous  Nov-29-10 04:32 PM   #0 
  - Activist judges! I can see the anti-Sharia laws spreading like anti-gay amendments.  thereismore   Nov-29-10 04:40 PM   #1 
  - Gays don't have a habit of chopping heads off and blowing up buildings  DissedByBush   Nov-29-10 08:34 PM   #35 
  - Maybe you could explain exactly what sharia Laws have been used in US courtrooms?  Winterblues   Nov-30-10 05:14 PM   #77 
  - Neither do 1.5 billion Muslims, certainly not Oklahoma Muslims.  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 10:34 PM   #89 
  - When did gay stop being the new gay? Do parents and clergy of Muslims shun Muslims and tell them  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 10:31 PM   #88 
  - Reminds me of a comic book I read as a kid, about Mars.  jobycom   Nov-29-10 04:40 PM   #2 
  - And you took away from that story not to attack people or places for trumped up reasons, as  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 04:55 AM   #117 
  - Drawing in the moron vote!  Lasher   Nov-29-10 04:49 PM   #3 
  - How would a flag amendment spill over on Obama? He's never burned a flag.  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 07:14 AM   #126 
  - Like there aren't enough REAL threats to be afraid of!  AlbertCat   Nov-29-10 04:58 PM   #4 
  - How the hell does someone equate religious law with International Law?  robinlynne   Nov-29-10 04:59 PM   #5 
  - Religion and law should never mix.  AlbertCat   Nov-29-10 05:07 PM   #9 
  - Because neither has a place in our judicial system  DissedByBush   Nov-29-10 05:30 PM   #15 
  - Treaties rather thoroughly have a place in the US legal system  Posteritatis   Nov-29-10 07:46 PM   #28 
  - This isn't about treaties  DissedByBush   Nov-29-10 08:32 PM   #34 
  - So, the Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma is... what?  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 08:46 PM   #37 
  - Uhhh, no.  Posteritatis   Nov-30-10 04:06 AM   #54 
  - It includes treaties, but it is not limited to them n/t  DissedByBush   Nov-30-10 04:05 PM   #74 
     - You got one right! But, given your reply #34, only by accident.  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 10:46 PM   #91 
  - Laws made by other nations?  Demstud   Nov-30-10 08:19 AM   #57 
  - Depends on how you define "made a difference."  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 01:32 AM   #104 
  - No, laws made by other nations is not international law, any more than U.S. law is international law  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 10:52 PM   #93 
  - That's how it seems to me. International Law, if our country has signed onto it,  robinlynne   Nov-29-10 11:33 PM   #49 
     - I think do not torture is one of those little international laws.  robinlynne   Nov-29-10 11:34 PM   #50 
  - (A) It needs no enforcement; (B) no law "enforces" anything; and  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 10:39 PM   #90 
  - Conservatives hate both  Posteritatis   Nov-29-10 07:48 PM   #29 
  - K & R, from an Okie  a la izquierda   Nov-29-10 05:02 PM   #6 
  - I'm not completely clear on this issue...  Mhak   Nov-29-10 05:02 PM   #7 
  - Can someone please explain to me what I'm apparently missing  AlbertCat   Nov-29-10 05:11 PM   #10 
  - That didn't help at all.  Mhak   Nov-29-10 05:16 PM   #11 
     - Nobody is  Goldom   Nov-29-10 05:28 PM   #12 
     - You are fundamentally correct and the judge is saying it has no business in the State Constitution  Brother Buzz   Nov-29-10 05:28 PM   #13 
     - The GOP version  bongbong   Nov-29-10 05:42 PM   #17 
     - Remember, my friend, that many Democrats also own firearms ...  spin   Nov-29-10 06:31 PM   #21 
     - 2nd Amendment?  bongbong   Nov-29-10 07:00 PM   #26 
     - Well regulated had a different meaning in those days ...  spin   Nov-29-10 07:41 PM   #27 
        - Yah.. and "arms" had a different meaning, too  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 08:24 PM   #32 
        - Yes  bongbong   Nov-29-10 09:10 PM   #41 
        - If you are right than explain these quotes from the founding fathers ...  spin   Nov-29-10 11:00 PM   #45 
           - No explanation needed!  bongbong   Nov-30-10 11:14 AM   #60 
           - I think we both have to admit that there was a lot of good discussion ...  spin   Nov-30-10 03:19 PM   #71 
           - Oh, please, Louise. What a few politicians say is not necessarily what  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 11:37 PM   #99 
        - No gun owner that I know wants to own a nuke ...  spin   Nov-29-10 10:50 PM   #44 
        - No soldier that I know wants to be quartered in someone's home without their consent, either  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 11:07 PM   #46 
        - I think our soldiers in Iraq enjoyed being in Saddam's palaces ...  spin   Nov-29-10 11:28 PM   #47 
           - And you accused another poster of an argument without relevance or substance?  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 12:35 AM   #102 
        - Lotsa gun owners, however, DO WANT....  bongbong   Nov-30-10 11:18 AM   #61 
        - I'm surprised that you were not aware of the fact that Americans ...  spin   Nov-30-10 03:48 PM   #72 
           - Putting words in my mouth  bongbong   Dec-01-10 10:01 AM   #81 
              - Why do you accuse those who support RKBA of "gun love" ...  spin   Dec-01-10 10:04 PM   #87 
        - Nope. Exaggerating to make a point does not render the point made irrelevant or  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 12:21 AM   #101 
        - So did speech and press.  beevul   Nov-30-10 01:08 PM   #68 
        - Red Herring  bongbong   Nov-29-10 09:06 PM   #39 
        - While it is fun to argue about the meaning of terms such as "well regulated"  spin   Nov-29-10 11:34 PM   #51 
           - SCOTUS argument irrelevent  bongbong   Nov-30-10 11:21 AM   #62 
           - This Isn't though.  beevul   Nov-30-10 01:05 PM   #67 
           - You should read my posts  bongbong   Nov-30-10 01:09 PM   #69 
           - That is NOT the preamble to the bill of rights. And your source is not  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 01:58 AM   #106 
           - My first good laugh of the day ...  spin   Nov-30-10 03:10 PM   #70 
              - spelling errors  bongbong   Dec-01-10 09:50 AM   #80 
              - Now you are putting words in my mouth ...  spin   Dec-01-10 11:24 PM   #98 
                 - hating to beat a dead horse  bongbong   Dec-02-10 02:31 PM   #129 
              - Not irrelevant to Daley, but not infallible or necessarily the final word on what the 2nd  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 02:11 AM   #107 
           - Heller is a narrow decision.  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 01:50 AM   #105 
        - How on earth does citing a reference to practices of well regulated  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 11:54 PM   #100 
     - Owning a gun is the same as reading the 2d am. as saying "Guns for everybody."  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 11:06 PM   #96 
     - OMG, what a huge  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 11:17 PM   #97 
     - Aw, crap  ProudDad   Nov-30-10 04:03 PM   #73 
     - I don't think this law favors any religion. Rather, I think it discriminates AGAINST one religion.  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 11:01 PM   #95 
     - It comes up in several contexts  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 06:31 PM   #20 
     - I did not know Sharia law forbids interest. Thanks.  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 02:33 AM   #109 
     - You're missing that this law singles out ONE religion. It does not say, for  No Elephants   Dec-01-10 10:57 PM   #94 
  - Ummmm... Get a clue  LuckyTheDog   Nov-29-10 05:29 PM   #14 
  - Ohh-k, that cleared it for me.  Mhak   Nov-29-10 06:00 PM   #19 
  - Excellent metaphor! But, you seem to be trying to duck this issue. (Couldn't resist.)  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 02:21 AM   #108 
  - Yes, because we have the separation of church and state this ballot measure...  Pacifist Patriot   Nov-29-10 05:45 PM   #18 
  - That's actually incorrect  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 06:33 PM   #22 
  - I get your point. Still going to say it was put on the ballot for nefarious reasons.  Pacifist Patriot   Nov-29-10 08:13 PM   #30 
     - yes, it was an expression of dumbth  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 08:23 PM   #31 
        - I agree the facts are important and thank you for correcting me, but...  Pacifist Patriot   Nov-30-10 07:07 AM   #55 
           - Agree. You may be interested in Reply 112. It's not my best writing, but maybe  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 03:49 AM   #113 
  - Google is your friend.  beevul   Nov-29-10 09:09 PM   #40 
     - Intent and state of mind matter in certain circumstances  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 10:05 PM   #42 
     - The appeal took well over a year,  woo me with science   Nov-30-10 12:12 AM   #53 
        - Dupe  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 03:34 AM   #111 
        - Yes, but, in denying the restraining order, the judge erred as to NJ law, Sharia had nothing to do  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 03:34 AM   #112 
     - I stand corrected and said so above.  Pacifist Patriot   Nov-30-10 07:09 AM   #56 
     - I see nothing at that link indicating the case was decided under Sharia law.  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 02:48 AM   #110 
  - If adopted it would prohibit Oklahoma courts from recognizing Saudi Arabian marriages  yellowcanine   Nov-30-10 11:23 AM   #63 
  - The judge's ruling makes sense:  robinlynne   Nov-29-10 05:03 PM   #8 
  - The judge was wrong, Shariah is law  DissedByBush   Nov-29-10 05:35 PM   #16 
     - Anything in a contract between two parties will apply in a US court  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 06:34 PM   #23 
     - Contracts have limits  DissedByBush   Nov-29-10 08:30 PM   #33 
        - WTF?  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 08:39 PM   #36 
           - Have religious food rulings ever been appealed under 1st Amendment?  Bragi   Nov-30-10 09:48 AM   #59 
           - Are you kidding, there are laws on the subject  jberryhill   Nov-30-10 07:03 PM   #79 
           - Noted  Bragi   Dec-01-10 10:21 AM   #83 
           - Kosher laws and the First Amendment  jberryhill   Dec-02-10 01:13 AM   #103 
              - Thanks for that  Bragi   Dec-02-10 07:29 AM   #127 
           - Saying laws exist doesn't answer the question whether they should exist or whether .  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 04:42 AM   #115 
           - Reality based hypotheticals are easier.  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 04:18 AM   #114 
              - Good arguments  Bragi   Dec-02-10 07:34 AM   #128 
           - All of that is completely irrelevant  DissedByBush   Nov-30-10 04:08 PM   #75 
              - Not relevant to the OP, but very relevant to this subthread.  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 04:48 AM   #116 
     - Wrong idea--and the amendment's poor wording reflects the islamaphobia  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 04:58 AM   #118 
  - OMG!  cyr330   Nov-29-10 06:38 PM   #24 
  - If we consider Shariah Law, it would also seem logical that we would have ...  spin   Nov-29-10 06:50 PM   #25 
  - If Sharia law is allowed, yes... we ought to allow any religious law people like!  ProgressiveMajority   Nov-29-10 08:48 PM   #38 
     - Read these sections of Oklahoma's marriage statutes:  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 10:11 PM   #43 
     - Interesting, yes. But it doesn't contradict barring Sharia law in judges Decisions  ProgressiveMajority   Nov-29-10 11:31 PM   #48 
     - "such" incorporates the previous qualifiers  jberryhill   Nov-29-10 11:54 PM   #52 
        - Really? So in Oklahoma there have never been Muslim marriages? n/t  ProgressiveMajority   Nov-30-10 11:35 AM   #64 
           - Well, it's a valid reading of the statute  jberryhill   Nov-30-10 12:25 PM   #66 
           - Do Muslim clerics qualify under "the Gospel" clause?  ieoeja   Nov-30-10 04:13 PM   #76 
              - Link?  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 05:56 AM   #124 
           - Not necessarily. You could have an Islamic clergy member marry you, BUT  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 05:23 AM   #121 
     - So,a wiccan or Budhist ceremony is out of the question? I guess Oklahoma  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 05:17 AM   #120 
     - Sure. Let;s not allow jurors to shoot judges, either. Let's pass a law  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 05:09 AM   #119 
  - Sharia law has already been used (but then overturned) in a U.S court  Bragi   Nov-30-10 08:21 AM   #58 
  - It's such a minor case, and was overturned...  ProgressiveMajority   Nov-30-10 06:49 PM   #78 
  - I think we need to acknowledge the facts in any debate  Bragi   Dec-01-10 10:18 AM   #82 
  - If we don't point out some positive aspect of Sharia, than why not have a constitutional ban on it?  ProgressiveMajority   Dec-01-10 01:27 PM   #84 
     - Not sure we disagree  Bragi   Dec-01-10 01:40 PM   #85 
        - Yeah, I think we do agree! That's a rare thing for me online... :)  ProgressiveMajority   Dec-01-10 04:55 PM   #86 
  - It was never used. Please see Reply 122 and 112.  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 05:49 AM   #123 
  - Sharia law was NOT used. And NJ Superior Court overturned it in July of this year.  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 05:40 AM   #122 
  - P.S. As far as sources:  No Elephants   Dec-02-10 07:08 AM   #125 
  - No surprise.  aranthus   Nov-30-10 12:01 PM   #65 
  - Oklahoma gvrnmt sure has time and $$ to burn huh?  lunasun   Dec-01-10 10:47 PM   #92 
  - Who in any case...  LeftishBrit   Dec-02-10 02:43 PM   #130 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC