|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
06-28-2010, 03:45 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Paul
It seems like the USSC has definitely helped reaffirm our Second Amendment rights, but a lot of the details are left open.
.
|
actually, 5-4 ....some on the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment and some others made it plain that they have little regard for it and I'm sure the rest of the Constitution and it's other Ammendments...the Kelo decision also comes to mind ...now....would you care to guess which were which? Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. ...... and will Obama once again berate the Supremes publically?, afterall the majority "stupidly" disagreed with his brilliant appointee ?
another Obama bud..."Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he's disappointed by Monday's Supreme Court decision that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live."
|
|
|
|
06-28-2010, 04:07 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
actually, 5-4 ....some on the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment and some others made it plain that they have little regard for it and I'm sure the rest of the Constitution and it's other Ammendments...the Kelo decision also comes to mind ...now....would you care to guess which were which? Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. ...... and will Obama once again berate the Supremes publically?, afterall the majority "stupidly" disagreed with his brilliant appointee ?
another Obama bud..."Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he's disappointed by Monday's Supreme Court decision that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live."
|
So your answer to my question from the other thread:
Quote:
It really is impossible for you to not turn every single post into something about Obama huh?
|
is yes.
|
|
|
|
06-28-2010, 06:03 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
So your answer to my question from the other thread:
is yes.
|
the people that you abhor idealogically for the most part just "definitely helped reaffirm our(your) Second Amendment rights"...the people that you seem to lean toward politically don't give a rat's ass about your second amendment rights, it's a little contradictory...that's all I'm sayin'...and there's another one of Your People in the confirmation process currently who would side with the minority in this case nominated by the guy that you voted for....it's all related to OBAMA AT THE MOMENT
|
|
|
|
06-28-2010, 07:09 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
the people that you abhor idealogically for the most part just "definitely helped reaffirm our(your) Second Amendment rights"...the people that you seem to lean toward politically don't give a rat's ass about your second amendment rights, it's a little contradictory...that's all I'm sayin'...and there's another one of Your People in the confirmation process currently who would side with the minority in this case nominated by the guy that you voted for....it's all related to OBAMA AT THE MOMENT
|
How little of a clue you have about my political philosophy is very apparent. However, I'm not going to high-jack Sweetwater's thread and get into yet another pissing match instigated by you.
On topic, after reading more about this ruling, I think the effects will be widespread. Chicago is already looking to put similar restrictions in place like DC did after it's ban was lifted, like banning all handguns that can own a clip and making applicants jump through major hoops and spend a lot of dough in order to get their license.
Striking down the DC and now the Chicago bans are the Constitutionally correct choices.
|
|
|
|
06-28-2010, 07:40 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
How little of a clue you have about my political philosophy is very apparent. However, I'm not going to high-jack Sweetwater's thread and get into yet another pissing match instigated by you.
On topic, after reading more about this ruling, I think the effects will be widespread. Chicago is already looking to put similar restrictions in place like DC did after it's ban was lifted, like banning all handguns that can own a clip and making applicants jump through major hoops and spend a lot of dough in order to get their license.
Striking down the DC and now the Chicago bans are the Constitutionally correct choices.
|
JD, it's not just a pissing match. It is absolutely critical to understand how thin the support for Constitutionally correct choices is. And in this regard , at this time in our history, it is very much about Obama and who he chooses for the Supreme Court. His first appointment, in this decision, voted Constitutionally incorrectly. His pending second appointment appears to be similarly disposed. These two will be replacements for like-minded judges. If he is re-elected, he may get the chance to change the balance of the Court so that the majority will, on this type of issue, decide differently.
|
|
|
|
06-28-2010, 08:12 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 156
|
A small step in the right direction. There will be more cases to go before the courts to define the rulings of McDonald and Heller. What is upsetting is that the decision was 5-4 in both cases. They are about your constitutional right. This is not given to you by the government! If the Supremes were actually working on strict constitutional law it should be 9-0. It is Ironic how our forefathers felt the only other right that was more important than the second was the first. One and two should not be messed with. What would happen if the pissing contests were called of by the Government? Just my 2 cents.
Vic
|
|
|
|
06-28-2010, 08:23 PM
|
#7
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,125
|
the way i see the issue is, there is nothing wrong with our right to bear arms
guns don't commit crimes, people do
I see those who wish to ban guns as taking the lazy way out. much like the state workers at Scussett locking the gates at the east end instead of dealing with any issues with allowing access. The justice system needs to deal with lawbreakers who have illegal guns.
the more armed citizens there are to protect ourselves, the less likely to become a victim.
glad I live in a town that allows guns and does not discourage them.
|
|
|
|
06-28-2010, 08:42 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notfishinenuf
One and two should not be messed with. What would happen if the pissing contests were called of by the Government? Just my 2 cents.
Vic
|
not all that far fetched actually.....
Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers
‘Kill switch’ bill approved, moves to Senate floor
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, June 25, 2010
President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.
|
|
|
|
07-03-2010, 08:14 AM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,483
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
first appointment, in this decision, voted Constitutionally incorrectly.
|
If that's really the case then why was there ever a vote?
-spence
|
|
|
|
07-03-2010, 01:24 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,008
|
here ya go fishweewee
I/G showing off my Mossberg 590 and AK 47's :
|
|
|
|
07-03-2010, 08:21 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
If that's really the case then why was there ever a vote?
-spence
|
Why didn't you ask JohnnyD why he thinks striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally corrrect choices? And "if that's really the case" how would you characterize the minority opinion? Were the minority votes also Constitutionally correct? Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view? Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered? Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes? Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?
Last edited by detbuch; 07-03-2010 at 09:18 PM..
Reason: typo
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 AM.
|
| |