Jump to content

Justices Extend Gun Owner Rights Nationwide


chevysoldier

Recommended Posts

This is basically what I already said:

That is the Federal Governments ENTIRE purpose. Not part of their purpose. The "other" things that they do are the things that infringe on "states rights".

Way to not understand. The application is a constant process. The 'perfect' balance is not static, because time is not static and neither are countries. There will always be circumstances which change, technologies which present new problems, etc. The framers understood this; it's why we have a legislative and judicial branch-- otherwise we'd only need one guy to walk around carrying out the instructions in the handy-dandy manual.

Instead, we have to constantly examine our interpretations, both to see whether they meet with our understanding of the constitution and to see whether what we're doing works in a practical sense.

You make ZERO sense here. "Perfect" balance? Between what? "Constant" process?? "Constantly" examine our interpretations?? You need to step away from the crack pipe again. The Constitution isn't open for "interpretation". The laws that the legislative branch makes is what are "interpreted" to ensure they don't violate the Constitution - you said so yourself. The purpose of the SCOTUS has nothing to do with "seeing if what we're doing works in a "practical" sense. Their job is to determine how a particular law or previous lower court ruling relates to the Constitution.

Regardless of what ever else changes, the Constitution is constant. Period.

You won't hear me deny that. I will say that the passage of the Civil Rights Act helped drive a lot of the bigots into the other party, so now the Republicans get to deal with them.

Interesting. Republican support of civil rights laws drove the "bigots" to that party? Is that another assumption on your part, or do you have some facts or names to back that up? Seriously dude, stop talking out of your ass. You're embarrassing yourself.

Incidentally, I'm not a Democrat. Call me an independent liberal, if you will-- I vote for more democrats than republicans, but that's because I agree with the average democratic candidate on about 45% of the issues and the average republican on about 25% of them. Neither party impresses me much.

"Independent Liberal"? That's a new one. I've never seen someone who was willing to give themselves the the "liberal" (progressive) label without adding the "democrat" to it as well.

Off the top of my head, try HB1 in Georgia. It's your run-of-the-mill abortion ban, with a nice page laden with religious nonsense:

You can google yourself for more.

What you've quoted seems to be merely someone's opinion of that bill as I could find no similar language in the bill itself.

Its not up to me to disprove your statements. You have to prove they're correct. If you've got some facts to back your ridiculous statements up, bring them into the discussion.

For some reason I can just picture you stomping your little feet in red-faced righteous indignation every time a liberal says anything. Hate all you want, I'm still just as much a citizen as you are.

I seldom get red faced or indignant, but if that's the way you want to picture me, go ahead. I still picture you with that dumb assed "gangsta" look that you had in your old avatar.

Wont last long

What, exactly, won't last long here Sam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, I tend to agree with this ruling and with the permissive interpretation of the 2nd amendment in general (as opposed to the more restrictive 'militia' interpretation). I just think it's funny when people who oppose national authorities telling the states what they can and can't do stop complaining when the national authorities take their side against the states.

I think you are missing the point. The federal gov has certain enumerated powers and aren't supposed to have any more than that, the rest is reserved to the states and the people. However, that same document that lays it all out says certain things the feds or the states can't mess with, period. The second amendment is one of those. It's not a fuck the fed when its convenient, its fuck the fed when they overstep their bounds. In this case it was the state/local gov overstepping their bounds.

The only part of this that is bullshit is the long standing precedent of the Supreme Court deciding if a constitutionally protected right is "incorporated" to the states or not. They've continued to fuck up the 14th amendment with this decision by ignoring the privileges or immunities clause. Only Thomas seemed to get it in this decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this before (the videos also) and while I disagree with some of the writer's reasoning, he's spot on with the fact that "liberal" gun control measures disproportionally affect blacks and other minorities due to the "geography" of the bans.

Especially appropriate for this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, exactly, won't last long here Sam?

The ruling wont last. It only passed 5-4. How long do you think it will take before the Barackracy gets a liberal in there that changes all that? I give it 12 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ruling wont last. It only passed 5-4. How long do you think it will take before the Barackracy gets a liberal in there that changes all that? I give it 12 months.

As far as I know, the only way to change a Supreme Court decision (and the application of that decision) is to change the Constitution through the amendment process.

BHO may have another chance to appoint a Justice, but the only other one knocking on death's door is Ginsberg. She's another liberal (as is Stevens who is retiring) and replacing her during this administration wouldn't change the balance of the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the only way to change a Supreme Court decision (and the application of that decision) is to change the Constitution through the amendment process.

BHO may have another chance to appoint a Justice, but the only other one knocking on death's door is Ginsberg. She's another liberal (as is Stevens who is retiring) and replacing her during this administration wouldn't change the balance of the court.

I honestly haven't been paying attention to who makes up the current Supreme Court, so I'm not gonna act like I know what I'm talking about. I just dont think Obobo will let this stand for very long. But I'm a fear monger that doesn't believe good things will last very long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly haven't been paying attention to who makes up the current Supreme Court, so I'm not gonna act like I know what I'm talking about. I just dont think Obobo will let this stand for very long. But I'm a fear monger that doesn't believe good things will last very long.

Consider yourself updated.

Seriously, though, there isn't much BHO can really do about this. The Constitutional review has occurred, and the matter is settled really. They could try the amendment route, but that would be a long, uphill battle. It certainly wouldn't happen in our lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I agree with the author's interpretation of the 14th amendment, but its an interesting read none the less. Some of the comments are insightful as well.

I still think the court did the right thing.

I do too. I just thought I'd post a different view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- ....Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall

Chicago went down......

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I agree with the author's interpretation of the 14th amendment, but its an interesting read none the less. Some of the comments are insightful as well.

I still think the court did the right thing.

Great read and it would take me half the day to reply properly to this so I'm not going to do it. I find many flaws with the premise but the argument takes much support to defend because the questions the writer raised were good points.

I concur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to three days ago.

The city of Chicago's "handgun" ban was EXACTLY what the case was about.

Thanx number 43.... It's good to be here

I took Chevy's quote to mean that Chicago was the next issue. Obviously I'm not followin' this decision too closely, other than reading your guys' comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx number 43.... It's good to be here

Sooner or later you'll make it to today.

I took Chevy's quote to mean that Chicago was the next issue. Obviously I'm not followin' this decision too closely, other than reading your guys' comments

I can see how you'd be easily confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welcome to chicago

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

"We can limit the place in which those handguns can be located,"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hIWgd9nlX0S5df61V1VxuPif8gXgD9GMEC7O1

i guess at least you can have one in your house now. its a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...