A fun comeback when anti's bring up the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment


PDA






GuyWithQuestions
June 17, 2007, 05:54 PM
I couldn't help but share this once I found this out and started using it on those who argue against firearms. I figured that this would be most appropriate in the Legal section. You hear arguments about whether the 2nd Amendment refers to individuals' right to bear arms or the National Guard's right, and how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it's the National Guard's right. Well, I found something interesting that may not be effective in convincing the other side, but is fun to bring up (if you do it the right way) in your arguments with the anti's when they say "The U.S. Supreme Court said...." You know how there's all those arguments out there on whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit and how botanists and other scientists say it's a fruit because it comes from the ripened ovary of a flowering plant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Controversies The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tomatoes are vegetables (Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304), even though they were given evidence that it's a fruit from dictionaries. It was over a tariff issue, where imported vegetables were charged a tariff, while fruits were not. The U.S. Supreme Court said:
"The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word 'fruit' as the seed of plants, or that part of plants which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are 'fruit,' as distinguished from 'vegetables,' in common speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

Again, it probably won't convince the anti's and doesn't prove anything, but it's fun to bring it up in anti conversations (if you do it the right way). When they say, "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled..." you respond with, "In Nix v. Hedden, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that tomatoes are vegetables, not fruit, although scientists say that they're fruit."

If you enjoyed reading about "A fun comeback when anti's bring up the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Quiet
June 17, 2007, 06:10 PM
When did SCOTUS rule that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the National Guard?

Because, US v Miller did not rule that.

The US attorney's argued 4 points.
1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected.

The Court also indicated that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

So, basically, it was all about how the NFA was not unconstitutional and did not violate the Second Amendment.

1911Tuner
June 17, 2007, 06:13 PM
A tomato is actually a berry...

Cheers

gunsmith
June 17, 2007, 06:16 PM
When arguments like this one are "fun".....

I would counter, yes, scotus said it is a "to mat toe" but I know the 9th circuit said "tah may toe":neener:

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 06:16 PM
It matters not. Our right to to keep and bear produce shall not be infringed!!!!!



Jefferson

TallPine
June 17, 2007, 06:42 PM
Why do you need tomatoes, anyway ...? :p

Zundfolge
June 17, 2007, 06:51 PM
You can have my tomatoes when you take them from my cold, dead gazpacho!

Wheeler44
June 17, 2007, 07:01 PM
Under the Reagan administration schools were allowed to count a ketchup package served with lunch " a serving of vegetables"

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 07:13 PM
Tomatoes in a SCHOOL!!!!
Somebody think of the CHILDREN!!!


Jefferson

GuyWithQuestions
June 17, 2007, 08:26 PM
I love tomatoes! And it's actually kind of weird, on my research on vegetables and fruits in Wikipedia, although scientifically a carrot is not a fruit, the European Union defines carrots as fruit in the commercial world for the purposes of measuring the proportion of "fruit" contained in carrot jam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit#Botanic_fruit_and_culinary_fruit

sacp81170a
June 17, 2007, 09:46 PM
It matters not. Our right to to keep and bear produce shall not be infringed!!!!!

Specifically, the right to keep and bear fruit has been around since the Garden of Eden. Eve ate the fruit, kept it, and bore the fruit to Adam, and Adam ate it. Nuthin' but trouble ever since, I tell ya... :neener:

ServiceSoon
June 17, 2007, 11:29 PM
Too funny

DWARREN123
June 18, 2007, 01:22 AM
I like the Right to Arm Bears!

AZRickD
June 18, 2007, 01:44 AM
Why do you need tomatoes, anyway ...?
"...a drive-by fruiting..."

Robin Williams as Mrs. Doubtfire.

Rick

jaytex1969
June 18, 2007, 02:50 AM
Tomatoes rank up there with coffee and RKBA, as far as I'm concerned. I'm watching a very special one ripen on the vine right now. I have big plans for that one....

Beachmaster
June 18, 2007, 04:01 AM
I just put up a "Tomato Free Zone" sign at the local school. That will solve all the problems.

:)

High Planes Drifter
June 18, 2007, 09:22 AM
Why do you need tomatoes, anyway ...?

"...a drive-by fruiting..."

Robin Williams as Mrs. Doubtfire.


You beat me to it. LOL. One of the funniest moments on the big screen in recent times.

AZRickD
June 18, 2007, 10:35 AM
...spoiled years of left-wing activism by Mr. Williams. I'm sensitive, that way.

Rick

Technosavant
June 18, 2007, 10:38 AM
Other things to bring up:

Dred Scott v. Sandford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)
Plessy v. Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson)

Both cases are today recognized as major mistakes by the SCOTUS, and ultimately harmful to the health of the nation. Supreme Court decisions are not infallible, and it is possible for the Court to go against the words and intent of the Constitution if they have a personal bias in the matter.

jerkface11
June 18, 2007, 10:50 AM
As I've said before tomatoes are an assault vegetable. All you produce nuts will jump all over me saying "it isn't a vegetable" but i think we all know what the term assault vegetable means. It splatters easily has more than 10 seeds and is sized properly for throwing.

xd9fan
June 18, 2007, 11:16 AM
It matters not. Our right to to keep and bear produce shall not be infringed!!!!!
couldnt agree more
asking a branch of Govt what my Rights are is.....unamerican....at least in the eyes of America's first generation.

MEH
June 18, 2007, 04:43 PM
It splatters easily has more than 10 seeds and is sized properly for throwing.

Don't forget you can throw it from the hip.:what:

At least they don't have that shoulder thing that goes up.:neener:

USAFNoDAk
June 18, 2007, 06:08 PM
Did you ever see "The Little Rascals" episode where they had the fight against Butch and his gang? Butch was firing tomatoes at the Rascals with a contraption that had some big rubber bands and what looked to be a tin can to hold the tomato being fired. Then the Little Rascals started putting watermelons on the teeter totter and Chubby would jump on the other end, launching the watermelons at Butch and his gang. They took out the tomato launcher and the battle was about over. Too funny.

Sam Adams
June 18, 2007, 06:10 PM
The US attorney's argued 4 points.

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.

Gee, what happens when the law (Title 18, Section 922(o), passed in 1986) FORBIDS the collection of the $200 for the registration of full autos? Has that issue ever been litigated? It would seem to cut the NFA off at the knees.

ghschirtz
June 18, 2007, 06:20 PM
Another comeback...

WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION written by Marko Kloos

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

Erebus
June 18, 2007, 07:02 PM
Any plant that yields more than 10 tomatos should be banned.

And those cheap, easily concealable cherry tomatos, don't get me started on those.

Sam Adams
June 20, 2007, 03:02 PM
C'mon, someone tell me why the NFA restrictions on full autos is still valid when Title 18, Section 922(o) forbids any additions to the full auto registry (and, thus, forbids the collection of the $200.00 tax for doing so)? It seems to me that this is a gimme - so I must be missing something. I can't be the first person in the last 21 years to think of this.

Carl N. Brown
June 20, 2007, 03:34 PM
Title 18, Section 922(o)
Without looking it up, I will presume this is the change to the
US Code brought about by the Hughes Amendment.

Between 1934 and 1986, about 128,000 machineguns were
registered under the National Firearms Act registry, with little
or no crime use of NFA registered guns--only one murder (by
a police officer who obviously had access to other firearms).
Some people called the machinegun registry a successful
control law. So what did the antis do when they had the
opening? They tacked the Hughes Amendment onto the
Firearms Owners Protection Act as a "poison pill"--banned
future NFA MG registrations 19 May 1986.

Title 18, Section 922(o) is a monument to the fact that
antis do not want "control"--they want bans. To the
prohibitionist mentality reasonable legislation is prohibition.
The most restrictive registration program was not enough--
the Hughes Amendment turned it into a defacto ban.

Steve499
June 20, 2007, 03:51 PM
I'm still wondering when SCOTUS ruled the 2nd amendment only applied to the national guard.

Steve

jselvy
June 20, 2007, 03:52 PM
That's a common misinterpretation of the Miller decision isn't it?

Jefferson

Seminole
June 20, 2007, 07:20 PM
Marko,

Very well put!

Davo
June 20, 2007, 09:24 PM
Who invented Carrot Jam? History's greatest monster, thats who...

Sam Adams
June 21, 2007, 01:17 PM
Title 18, Section 922(o) is a monument to the fact that
antis do not want "control"--they want bans. To the
prohibitionist mentality reasonable legislation is prohibition.
The most restrictive registration program was not enough--
the Hughes Amendment turned it into a defacto ban.

Exactly my point - because of 922(o), the NFA is no longer a law that has revenue raising as its main intent. CLEARLY the refusal to accept revenue demonstrates that the point of the NFA is prohibition, pure and simple.

Again, for any 2A legal beagles, does this give rise to a credible challenge to the NFA?

If you enjoyed reading about "A fun comeback when anti's bring up the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!