Krulick gets schooled!
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Mar 08

Stockport, UK

#43 May 30, 2011
Mr Krulick said:
"SCotUS just scrapped 200 year plus of clear and consistent understanding"

legaleagle45 replied:
"Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn.(3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871) are all in disagreement with you."

I said:
"There's no mention of the Second Amendment in Bliss."

legaleagle45 replied:
"It involves a state analog of the 2nd..."
----------
Almost EVERYTHING that YOU say is having to be corrected.
Do courts rely on your "work" in Second Amendment cases?
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#44 May 30, 2011
Bob2bob wrote:
Mr Krulick said:
"SCotUS just scrapped 200 year plus of clear and consistent understanding"
legaleagle45 replied:
"Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn.(3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871) are all in disagreement with you."
I said:
"There's no mention of the Second Amendment in Bliss."
legaleagle45 replied:
"It involves a state analog of the 2nd..."
----------
Almost EVERYTHING that YOU say is having to be corrected.
Do courts rely on your "work" in Second Amendment cases?
You do not suppose he was talking about only one case, do you? LOL!!!
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#45 May 30, 2011
Bob2bob wrote:
Mr Krulick asked: "HOW does the personal ownership of a handgun by a 70-year-old grandmother (an individual who would NEVER serve in the militia) improve the "effectivenes" of the militia?"
----
legaleagle45 said:
"...many militia statutes of the colonial era required all persons to have arms, and not just members of the "well regulated militia". For example Connecticut statutes required every militiaman "and other house-holder" to have a firelock and ammunition..."
Then I added the part that legaleagle45 left out:
"...to the satisfaction of the commission officers of the company to which he doth belong."
[So, the "house-holders" referred to are members of a "company." That would EXCLUDE any "70-year-old grandmothers."]
legaleagle45 then had the nerve to say to ME:
"..you misrepresented the statute."
Then legaleagle45 added:
"OR IN THE LIMITS OF WHICH HE DWELLS..."
It makes NO difference. "HE" isn't a 70 year old granny. "HE" belongs to a "company."
I'm off to clean the mud off my boots now.
The requirement applies to all householders living in the geographic area, Bob. What part of "OR IN THE LIMITS OF WHICH HE DWELLS" do you not understand? And why did you leave that out?

Since: Mar 08

Stockport, UK

#46 May 30, 2011
legaleagle45 said:
"An exception..."

[Got that.]

"...is Nunn v. State,... It ruled:
"The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments."

[We know that he was wrong there, don't we?]

"...The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited..."

[But he'd just SAID that the Second Amendment was intended to limit State governments.]

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,..."

[Seems to me like he's expressing a different meaning from the accepted meaning of the day.]

"...to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia,..."

[Oh? I thought the latest story was that they had to be militia "type" arms. Inconsistency.]

"...shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,..."

[Children and old folks in a well regulated militia? The man's lost it.]

"Deal with it."

[With your one hyped-up case? Done.]

Since: Mar 08

Stockport, UK

#47 May 30, 2011
legaleagle45 wrote:
<quoted text>
The right belongs to all individuals within the class described as "people" and protects the same individuals as are protected by the 4th Amend...
I asked if the right was as broad as free speech and freedom of religion. Why have you side-stepped that question?

Is there a difference between a "class of persons" and the "persons of a class?"

You quoted Urquidez. In that ruling, they said that "the people" class "contrasts with.. persons.." Do you think that they meant to say "contrasts with foreign persons?" You explain HOW they contrast.

Since: Mar 08

Stockport, UK

#48 May 31, 2011
legaleagle45 wrote:
<quoted text>
"All persons except negroes to be provided with arms and amunition or be fined at pleasure of the Governor and Council." The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 (New York: R. & W. & G. Bartow, 1823), 1:226.
You KNOW that they didn't mean ALL individuals, including 70 year old grannies.
Post just ONE instance where someone who WASN'T eligible to serve in the militia was fined for not providing arms or ammunition. From ANYWHERE, not just New York.
But even if these statutes WERE aimed at 70 year old grannies, it doesn't prove that the Second Amendment was intended to protects a personal right for everyone to own and carry guns.
Arden Moss

New York, NY

#50 Apr 21, 2012
Bob came out looking even more foolish than Krulick in this debate.

Since: Jan 15

Manchester, UK

#51 Jan 6, 2015
legaleagle45 wrote:
<quoted text>
The right belongs to all individuals within the class described as "people" and protects the same individuals as are protected by the 4th Amend...
It's "the people," not just "people."
At that time, many state constitutions secured the right to regulate the police, institute government, change/alter/abolish the government etc. The same constitutions secured the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches. But because a person belonging to the people of THAT state was free from unreasonable searches doesn't mean he had the personal right to regulate the police, institute government and change/alter/abolish the government. They're NOT all applied/exercised in exactly the same way and there's NO reason to insist that rights of "the people" in the U.S. Bill of Rights must all be applied/exercised exactly as they are with the 4th Amendment.
Every state declaration of rights secured a right of the people in their COLLECTIVE AND POLITICAL CAPACITY to maintain a well regulated militia. NONE of them secured gun rights. The ONLY reason put forward for an amendment to the new constitution was that Congress might FAIL to maintain the militia and prevent the states from doing so by claiming that THAT right was given up to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. These fears were addressed by RECOGNIZING that pre-existing right and protecting it against infringement.
NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
This (and all the others) secures a collective right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. If the purpose of an amendment was to protect THAT right from infringement, wouldn't the purpose look exactly like this:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...?"
Law

Bellevue, NE

#52 May 4, 2015
Bob2bob 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's "the people," not just "people."
At that time, many state constitutions secured the right to regulate the police, institute government, change/alter/abolish the government etc. The same constitutions secured the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches. But because a person belonging to the people of THAT state was free from unreasonable searches doesn't mean he had the personal right to regulate the police, institute government and change/alter/abolish the government. They're NOT all applied/exercised in exactly the same way and there's NO reason to insist that rights of "the people" in the U.S. Bill of Rights must all be applied/exercised exactly as they are with the 4th Amendment.
Every state declaration of rights secured a right of the people in their COLLECTIVE AND POLITICAL CAPACITY to maintain a well regulated militia. NONE of them secured gun rights. The ONLY reason put forward for an amendment to the new constitution was that Congress might FAIL to maintain the militia and prevent the states from doing so by claiming that THAT right was given up to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. These fears were addressed by RECOGNIZING that pre-existing right and protecting it against infringement.
NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
This (and all the others) secures a collective right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. If the purpose of an amendment was to protect THAT right from infringement, wouldn't the purpose look exactly like this:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...?"
Swing and a miss. Leagle Eagle smoked you and Krulick.
Class dismissed. Those urinals aren't going to clean themselves.

Since: Jan 15

Manchester, UK

#53 Jun 7, 2015
Law wrote:
<quoted text>Swing and a miss. Leagle Eagle smoked you...
But it wasn't a "miss."
In state constitutions collective rights were always secured to "the people." Individual rights were always secured to every "member of society," "man," "individual" etc. But the right to assemble and be free from searches were sometimes secured to "the people" simply to limit the reach of the right to the people of the state, NOT to extend the reach of the right to all individuals.
In the U.S. BoR, "the people" in the 1st and 4th Amendments is ALSO only used to limit the reach of the right, but "the people" here is a different body; the people of the US.
In the comment I replied to, Legal Eagle even said that "the people" is a "class" of persons, but he mistakenly believes that it must always mean "as individuals." As I've already pointed out, the evidence from state constitutions proves him wrong. Individuals don't have the right to institute government or regulate the police.
Law

La Vista, NE

#54 Jun 17, 2015
Bob2bob 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
But it wasn't a "miss."
In state constitutions collective rights were always secured to "the people." Individual rights were always secured to every "member of society," "man," "individual" etc. But the right to assemble and be free from searches were sometimes secured to "the people" simply to limit the reach of the right to the people of the state, NOT to extend the reach of the right to all individuals.
In the U.S. BoR, "the people" in the 1st and 4th Amendments is ALSO only used to limit the reach of the right, but "the people" here is a different body; the people of the US.
In the comment I replied to, Legal Eagle even said that "the people" is a "class" of persons, but he mistakenly believes that it must always mean "as individuals." As I've already pointed out, the evidence from state constitutions proves him wrong. Individuals don't have the right to institute government or regulate the police.
You just don't know when to stay down after you've been hit so many times. Legaleagle clearly had his ducks in a row as he mowed down your feeble attempts to obfuscate the obvious.
Even Krulick wouldn't make some of the dubious claims you were.
That you never held sway in the Guns Forum and had every argument summarily field stripped as fast as you would foist it up is evidence enough of your standing as Forum Pinata.
Gloria Jane

Albuquerque, NM

#55 Nov 8, 2015
Krulick wrote:
I'm going to bed. I have to write a column when I get up, and prepare for a trip. When I get back in a week, I may continue on this thread, or on the other thread legaleagle dumped on, or not, if it's obvious he will NOT address my specific points, the main points of my essays, and just continue to bring up blatant assertions, irrelevant trivial side-steps and nit-picks, and otherwise fail to define terms and show where my support evidence is flawed in ways that MATTER, rather than just misrepresent, sling straw, or claim to know what I know or understand. Good night.
Run away, simpleton!
Patriot

Stanford, KY

#56 Mar 25, 2016
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, since I didn't go back to READ anything in the thread, for the reasons mentioned, how could I be "schooled" by it? Having NOW looked at it, and seeing that HE didn't refute what *I* had said (blatant assertions, and irrelevant asides don't refute), and what was in MY linked essays, any refutation by me wasn't necessary, because the refuting response was already in previous postings by me, and IN the essays. So how could I be "owned" much less "owned again," if I had never been "owned" in the first place?
You want "schooling"? Then I suggest YOU read my essays at http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/ and LEARN what legaleagle and the others refuse to learn.
Finally, I said that, barring time constraints, I WILL respond to the posts that came AFTER I decided to let the spammed thread drop, not knowing that legaleagle, who said he'd STOP posting in an Ellenville forum thread, decided to go back on his word AFTER I said I was not going to respond to it further.
Anyway, what's it to YOU?
Yes, you got schooled. Just like you do on your commie FB page. Lol!
Cassandra T

Ashburn, VA

#57 Oct 27, 2016
Krulick is a criminal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ellenville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Walmart Napanoch NY Jul 8 busted once too m... 7
News Ba burg residents seek resignations Jun 27 Moshe Aron Kesten... 1
News Hasidic school opens quietly in Bloomingburg May '17 Merkan Man 2
Review: Troy Reid and The Do It yourself World... (May '16) May '17 DrBill 12
News James Burke paid for sex in Oak Beach during Gi... (Dec '16) May '17 Mall Cop 8
Landord moving in all the black's to our town!!! (Jul '13) May '17 Moses Kestenbaum ODA 4
Contractor- Aaron Smith Mar '17 concerned 1

Ellenville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Ellenville Mortgages