|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Id. Ch. VII, §8 (emphasis added). Burke is more specific as to the need for the prominent members of the Aristocracy with their "apparent" and obviously "logical" superior ability must, “in the mass and body as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection.” Burke, Edmdund, "Reflections on the Revolution in France," (1790), pp. 88. Arms and social choices for having or not having arms, cannot be entrusted to the masses, because the mass' thoughts are ill-conceived. It's just "logical" to conclude that some are innately superior to others and naturally should rule is a ruse for not critically examining the source of those thoughts and their implications. Last edited by sarabellum; 08-16-2018 at 7:53 PM.. |
#482
|
||||
|
||||
Please state what, specifically, is tautological about what I have said.
Quote:
Which parts of my argument do you insist upon authority for, in any case?
And what is the basis for your insistence upon citation of authority? Is it that you dispute one or more of the foundations of my argument that I outline above? If so, which ones? Quote:
Now, if you want to show how power enters into the equation on the basis of what I actually said, please feel free to do so, and we can take it from there.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-16-2018 at 7:58 PM.. |
#483
|
|||
|
|||
The correctness of any proposition always depends on authority and evidence in all critical thought in all disciplines, be they science, law, or political philosophy. In the absence of authority the statement has no validity and is the origin for a false-hood. See CRC 3.113 (motions must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. The absence of a memorandum is an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial.)
The accuracy of any proposition, especially personal autonomy and the possession of arms by anyone, depends on evidence and authority. Last edited by sarabellum; 08-16-2018 at 8:20 PM.. |
#484
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
One does not need citation to authority to establish, for instance, that (absent obscuring things like smoke) the cloudless day sky is blue, or that we are having this discussion, or that the Constitution contains a 2nd Amendment. Those things are true regardless of whether or not one cites an authority that states them. But since you like citation of authority so much, let me give you this one: Quote:
Quote:
The purpose for citation of authority is to make it clear where a stated fact originates. But that is only necessary if the fact is in dispute. So again, your insistence upon citation of authority hinges upon skepticism of my stated facts. So again, I ask: which facts that I have stated do you have skepticism of, and what is the basis of that skepticism?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-16-2018 at 9:18 PM.. |
#485
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Think it through.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#486
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
But it can be much more dangerous than that, and when governments and societies lose the capacity for critical thinking, the results can be catastrophic—however sympathetic we may be to those who have bought the baloney.¶31. All critical inquiry requires evidence and citation to experts in science and authorities in social science and social thought. Sagan does not propose anything different. The "obvious as the sky" and other non-pertinent analogies are the Social Darwinism supporting technocracy- that the group in power is justifiably in power because they have power, and that power is a sign of their virtue. There is nothing obvious in social organization. The sky may be blue but the reason it is blue is not obvious nor what or why a thunderstorm clouded the sky. The notion that "what you see is what you get" in Social Darwinism justifies any social ill, including disarmament. The proper sources for confronting disarmament are not the physical sciences, which have nothing to say about relationships of power, but political thought and sociology. I gave you two examples- Hobbes and Burke- as the origins for the centralization of power and disarmament. The other sources for critical inquiry are Smith and Marx. Law only speaks to rules of administration. The relationship of law to power is the proper study of history, philosophy, and sociology. All are discrete disciplines. All require research, evidence, and citation to authority to prove validity for a proposition. There is no substitute for the heavy lifting of research to support a proposition, especially when claiming a reason for popular possession of arms and confronting the "obvious as the sky" reasons for disarmament, "If you don’t, others will." Last edited by sarabellum; 08-16-2018 at 10:21 PM.. |
#487
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Nichols Vs. Brown update...
It occurs to me that you might be equating “well supported” with “correct”. Certainly, “well supported” is essential in a good legal argument. This goes a long way towards explaining your position. But nevertheless, they are not the same thing. I’ll elaborate on that in a follow-up message. I wrote what follows before I realized this.
Quote:
Quote:
Tell me something: what makes a claimed authority an actual authority? Is it that authority's proclivity to cite other authorities? If so, where does the chain of authority end, and what makes the end of the chain an exception to the rule of the necessity for citation of authority? If all propositions and facts must be backed by citation to authority, then so too must propositions and facts stated by authorities themselves. To put authority into its proper place, answer this: if one is in possession of a repeatable real world observation that contradicts the claim of a citable authority, which wins, the observation or the authority? What if one creates a proposition with the repeatable observation as its basis? Is the proposition automatically invalid because it fails to cite an authority for the observation? Quote:
Quote:
Conclusions drawn from those facts are not always obvious, of course, and sometimes one needs to be clever indeed in order to acquire the facts (a.k.a. observations) necessary to arrive at a solid explanation for something. Quote:
Quote:
Citation to authority may be useful when facts are in dispute or when there is uncertainty about them. Even then, such citation might not prove dispositive. But such citation is unnecessary when there is no significant uncertainty about the facts. So once again, I ask, because you appear steadfast in your refusal to answer: which of the facts I stated are you skeptical of, and why? Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-17-2018 at 1:46 AM.. |
#488
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Heller simultaneously stands for the proposition that the scope of the right (and, thus, that which is protected) is that which was understood by the founding generation and that (when read a certain way, at least) there are no real limits, short of a statutory ban, on the amount, degree, or nature of "regulation" of the right that is Constitutionally permissible. Those two propositions are contradictory.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-17-2018 at 8:56 AM.. |
#490
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The problem is that the peer review process is also misused, leading to something that looks very much like arguments from authority. Quote:
In any case, this is a clear demonstration of the danger of relying on authority for one's propositions. A real-world proposition stands or falls on its own. The use of authority is necessary in law precisely because law is an arbitrary, manmade construct. There is no definitive standard of reference in law because of that, so authority is all you have. But for real-world propositions, the real world itself is the definitive standard of reference. This is the realm in which science plays, and it is for good reason that observation is the litmus test of propositions in that domain. It is also for good reason that repeatable observation is what is sought, as there is no good way to distinguish between a false claim and a nonrepeatable observation.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-17-2018 at 8:52 AM.. |
#491
|
||||
|
||||
"Validity" as applied to facts is really just a shorthand way of saying whether or not that which is claimed as fact really is fact.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#492
|
||||
|
||||
What if it's not read in that certain way? It seems that you allow for this possibility by including the qualification in parentheses, no?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#493
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If anything, it's a perfect example of how soft sciences try to emulate real science, but fall short because of the predetermined social justice outcome they are not willing to question. Look at discussion of The Bell Curve - the refutals are based on the possibility of alternative explanations, not on establishing those alternative explanations. The authors claim that a study is false because (1) it doesn't agree with their preconceived idea of social justice, and (2) there is a possible explanation consistent with their preconceived ideas. That's anything but scientific. If neither side can prove it, the issue remains open, not "settled based on social norms." The IQ debate is similar. We know that the early tests were flawed because they were mostly measuring education and familiarity with the local culture. However, with the newer tests, we either discard them as invalid, or we keep them and accept current results. What we can't do is at the same time claim that the tests are valid, while rejecting the outcomes that have but one flaw - that they don't match preconceived social justice conclusions. That's not science, that's anti-scientific social activism.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#494
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It must be true from now on.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There is no alternative to systematic research: But it can be much more dangerous than that, and when governments and societies lose the capacity for critical thinking, the results can be catastrophic—however sympathetic we may be to those who have bought the baloney.Sagan, Carl, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection," ¶31. Sagan above describes systematic inquiry. To claim "There are plenty of real-world observations that we all make every day . . . To insist that those observations" be supported with authority is absurd is simply to say assumptions and rumors about society are true. That the assumption must be true is Comtean positivism. "To Comte, however, applying the scientific method to social life meant practicing what we might call 'armchair philosophy'—drawing conclusions from informal observations of social life. He did not do what today’s sociologists would call research, and his conclusions have been abandoned." Fayeye, J.O., "Introduction to Sociology 1" (University of Ilorin, ISBN: 978-058-436-6, 2008), pp. 28. The Constitution and social relationships of power are abstract thought. You cannot observe the 2nd Amendment nor the relationships of power underlying it from the armchair. Chemerinsky, Erwin, "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies," (Aspen Law and Business, 1997), pp. XIX (Constitutional principles can and must be evaluated from a myriad of perspectives: issues of interpretation and how meaning should be given to the document; questions of institutional competence . . . normative visions of about the theories of government and individual freedoms; and in terms . . . of how doctrines affect people's lives . . .) "Real-world" observations is a short hand pretext for not engaging in critical inquiry and research, in particular with regard to arms and the Second Amendment. Last edited by sarabellum; 08-17-2018 at 11:44 AM.. |
#496
|
|||
|
|||
You are correct about Sagan. Sagan, despite his problems, accurately described systematic inquiry and research in the above cite. To get the nature of things, including the 2nd Amendment requires systematic inquiry.
Thank you for sharing the book, "Stephen J. Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky," addressing the cold war group think among scientists, campus and publisher suppression of the unorthodox view, and one scientific discipline's effort to censor Professor Velikovsky's two tests that, "could be performed as support for his theory: (1) That the Martian atmosphere "consists mainly of argon and neon" and (2) That "bands of gaseous hydrocarbon should be formed in the absorption spectrum of Venus," because they contradicted and "if found to be valid, scientists in a great many fields will have to change the underpinnings of their life's work." pp. 11, 32, 33. Profit motivations and midieval thinking taint many things. Id. pp. 34. Last edited by sarabellum; 08-17-2018 at 3:16 PM.. |
#498
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Is your claim that research is always necessary in the construction and promotion of any and all propositions and any and all facts that such propositions may depend upon? In what way does the insistence upon the citation of authority for the purpose of identifying facts differ from the insistence upon constructing a hierarchy of power for the purpose of controlling thoughts and/or beliefs?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-17-2018 at 4:44 PM.. |
#499
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Indeed, nowhere in that paper is there even a single mention of the term "cite" or "citation" or "reference" or "refer". It thus appears that this claim that Sagan insists upon citation of authority is one that is wholly made up by you.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-17-2018 at 5:51 PM.. |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That insight, I believe, brings us a step closer to grasping the real nature of the Velikovsky Affair. It explains why the acts of Velikovsky's scientific detractors consistently belie their own words and ideals about science . . ."Stephen J. Gould and Immanuel Velikovsky," pp. 34. That is to say systematic study should not apply, when it challenges your conclusions regarding the state, power, and law, much like the Velikovsky affair, where an entire body of science worked to prevent the publication of his works, because they called into question years worth of research of others assumed to be true, i.e. "it's logical to assume" or "real world observation" without question. Unlike the Velikovsky Affair, I asked you to speak, "cite your evidence and support for your contentions." Your response summarized is anything goes without evidence or support, limited only by the blue sky. Having less information and less systematic study is an odd way of confronting the precise legal arguments and discourse of disarmament. Last edited by sarabellum; 08-17-2018 at 6:51 PM.. |
#501
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So: is it your contention that citation to authority is required in order to support every proposition and every fact?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#502
|
||||
|
||||
What makes that book authoritative on anything?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#504
|
||||
|
||||
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-17-2018 at 6:59 PM.. |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
That is the ostrich defense.↑ You will not read it, because it requires effort- just the opposite of the systematic inquiry.
|
#506
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Is it really your approach to believe everything you're told by any source at all unless or until you discover you shouldn't? You cited that book as an authority. That means you believe it to be an authority. Moreover, you cited it in the context of a debate, as support for your position. Why should I believe it to be an authority on anything, even after reading it?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-17-2018 at 8:09 PM.. |
#507
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I don't disagree with you at all about the hypocrisy found amongst practitioners of science. That doesn't mean the methods of science themselves aren't sound if adhered to, only that practitioners aren't always perfect adherents to those methods. In any case, this whole thing about Sagan should by itself make abundantly clear why the insistence upon the use of authority for arguments should be looked upon with distrust, since absolutely nothing prevents an authority from being incorrect. Similarly, nothing prevents a non-authority from being correct. Correctness is an attribute that can only properly be measured against the real world itself, and the real world doesn't give a crap about whether or not you're an authority on anything. Ideas stand and fall on their own. That is no less true of the "baloney detection kit" described by Sagan than anything else. To insist that someone's ideas must be false because of a flaw in their character is no different than to insist that someone's statements must be true because of their exemplary character. There is but one proper arbiter of truth: the real world itself. The evidence that the methods of science generally work for revealing the real world to us is to be found in the technological marvels we have constructed upon the discoveries that science has revealed. That does not excuse the hypocrisy that may be found amongst the practitioners of science, of course, but it at least reveals what can be achieved when the methods are followed.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 08-17-2018 at 7:32 PM.. |
#510
|
||||
|
||||
bump to remind folks of other Carry Cases that are in the wings (pending Young) now that NYSRPA has been mooted
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 04-27-2020 at 11:42 AM.. |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Or by funny I mean when it suits them, character means nothing, but when its contrary to their sales pitch, it means everything. Sagan was delivered to the masses using the same dogma and processes that delivered Star Wars and Indiana Jones. He created the "grinning, affable scientist" prototype that is still used today to deliver consumer-grade science to the bored. People can simultaneously feel awed by things they knew nothing about, while feeling superior in some way (either to the scientists social status, or to the "unenlightened" around them who haven't consumed the same entertainment, whatever fits the particular situation) The idea that subjective information about the speaker has no useful information is to say the subjective information about anything has no useful information. That might be true in a world where everyone could repeat the entire chain of objective experiments and thought processes that led up to anything spoken by anyone, but that is not possible, and so subjective information must be used. Is it perfect? No. The alternative is ignoring everything or deducing all knowledge from scratch yourself without relying on any outside influences or sources. |
#512
|
||||
|
||||
For those that want to catch up on this case.
Here are the oral arguments from 2/15/2018. http://michellawyers.com/nichols-v-harris/
__________________
Quote:
|
#513
|
||||
|
||||
The difference between science and the law is that science is testable. Einstein's SR/GR replaced Newtonian mechanics not based on politics but on testable hypothesis that were falsifiable (just as Newtonian mechanics gained traction because it matched with not only millennia of planetary observation data, but predicted all planetary motions to be nearly perfectly)
The law has literally no such mechanism to test its internal bizarro world logic. The notion that there is any similarities between legal logic and the scientific method is ridiculous.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#514
|
||||
|
||||
I thought I came to a thread about updates to the ca open carry lawsuit filed by Nicols,instead I have to go through countless pages upon pages of semantic arguments about completely irrelevant bs entirely unrelated to anything remotely resembling anything but a pîssing contest. What in the literal fck? I am seeing countless knowledgeable posters getting into a "im smarter than you","are not" back & forth involving arguments about carl fcking Sagen ffs.
|
#515
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#516
|
||||
|
||||
I would argue that discussion about legal logic vs real logic (or the language of law vs real life English) is always applicable.
That said, the Sagan discussion is ridiculous.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#517
|
||||
|
||||
Charles Nichols:
IIRC, COVID 19 hits men 2x as often as women. If you are >65 yo, you're at heightened risk. (Basically, the older you are the greater your risk.) Quote:
What happens to Nichols' lawsuit if he's disabled (he's currently representing himself) or dies (IIRC, he's the only plaintiff)?
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#518
|
||||
|
||||
Read up on U.S. v. Miller. Miller and council were not present at orals, and Miller was killed before the decision was rendered. SCOTUS had no problem ruling in favor of gun control in that case. Why should the 9th care, either?
|
#519
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
After Brown was killed off by his cohorts, the case should have been declared moot--since you cannot be convicted of anything after you are dead. But the government was in a rush to validate the law so that it could be used against gangsters and bank robbers, so the Court heard the case anyway, and held that the law was valid since it was only a tax--you could still have those firearms as long as the tax was paid and the user registered (which obviously no law-avoiding criminal was going to do). On the other hand, a portion of the opinion (incorrectly) concludes that a short barrelled shotgun is not appropriate for use as a military arm by the militia--suggesting that firearms that ARE useful for fighting wars fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. Part of the decision can be read as stating that the @A is a collective right (and was cited for that proposition for decades) but at the same time other portions support the existence of an individual right. |
#520
|
||||
|
||||
Nichols Vs. Brown update...
Quote:
The first is a claim that the truth or falsehood of the statement turns on who said it. The second is a claim that one would be wise to take the proposition that the statement is correct seriously since X has a track record of being correct. See the difference? Well, in law, the first is what happens. If a statement comes from an authority, then it is declared correct precisely because it came from an authority. This, of course, can lead to all sorts of absurdity, but that's what happens when you pretend that your made-up arbitrary framework (the law), that has nothing but itself as its standard of reference, is the same in character as a discipline (science) that uses the real world as its standard of reference. And yes, I'm fully aware that some number of practitioners of the latter have been falling down on the job. Peer review in science doesn't exist to be a rubber stamping mechanism. It exists to ensure that someone who comes up with something hasn't done something that would make the results incorrect as measured against the real world. That isn't just limited to looking over the submission and checking it for errors. It includes duplication of the original observations, because claims in science are supposed to be testable through repeatable observations. But despite the failings of some of the practitioners of science, there is still an enormous difference between a discipline that ultimately uses the real world as its standard of reference and a made up arbitrary and artificial framework of pronouncements. Anyway, 'nuff said on that.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 04-28-2020 at 12:02 AM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|