OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Joe
local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership.
It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time
Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights"
over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will
conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this
decision.
While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
and/or repressive behavior.
Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
Joe
RBnDFW
I think you are missing the point.
The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the
government is constrained from limiting those rights.
The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights.
No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.
Tim Wescott
Yet the Supreme Court is supposed to be interpreting the US
constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text.
Which is fine with me, and makes me glad that's how things work in the
US -- if _you_ want to live in a land where the rules are made and
enforced according to some preacher's interpretation of religious law,
there's always Iran.
--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
Ed Huntress
"RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hmjg0r$g5s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
But there are several ironies here. First is that the Constitution was
written by men, so *their* interpretation of "basic rights of humans" could
be wrong. In fact, the US signed a UN document (and largely wrote it) a
half-century ago that says we missed close to half of them.
Second is that the same people who claim states' rights are the ones who say
the Constitution was about limitations to what the *federal* government
could do, and over which it had authority. This was confirmed by the Supreme
Court in the 1830s, in the Barron v. Baltimore case. Then the 14th Amendment
was passed decades later, and now we're still deciding whether that actually
gave the federal government, particularly the Supreme Court, the authority
to decide when a state is violating a right of their citizens. In the matter
of the 2nd Amendment, that's what this case is going to decide.
The final irony, which Joe pointed out, is that Scalia and Thomas (mostly
Scalia) has been sarcastically bad-mouthing the "substantive due process"
doctrine that has given us such things as nation-wide free speech, freedom
of religion, and so on, for a few decades. That's the most likely doctrine
for the Court to follow in granting federal authority to enforce the right
to keep and bear arms, over the heads of the states.
But it's well known that Scalia and Thomas hate that doctrine, while at the
same time favoring the extending of the right over the states -- a process
called "incorporation" under the 14th. They're between a rock and a hard
place. Either they invoke substantive due process and embarrass themselves
(that's what the NRA wants them to do, in their parallel case), or they
overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases which have stood as precedent since the
1870s, and employ a different doctrine from the 14th to incorporate the 2nd.
We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that it
was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who is
supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato
Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange bedfellows
indeed.
Fasten your seat belt. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
...or any state south of the Mason Dixon line.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "RBnDFW" <burkhei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am reminded of the saying...."Be careful what you ask for". ;<)
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Well said for the most part.
But it's not about freedom.
It's about owning a specific tool...a gun.
Wouldn't be a laugh if more restrictive gun control came out of this?
TMT
Joe
wrote:
*I'm* missing the point? While I believe that we do have "certain
inalienable rights", where is the list? What, exactly, are those
rights?
(Besides, I don't think that the issue here is about rights granted by
any "creator". I think it concerns rights established by the - mere
mortal - framers of the Constitution for the protection of the
citizens.)
Joe
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
No it is not.
There is no 11th Commandment saying "Thou shalt have guns".
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ed...considering the courts have given Eminent Domain free reign, what
stops the Government from declaring all guns "property of the
Government"?
TMT
Shabtai
You flaming socialist/liberals are amazing!!!!
Don't give up your freedoms so quickly!! You don't get them back.
I wish my grandparents had guns when the SS put a gun to my
grandfather's head.
Government don't care about your rights. Government care about their
control over YOU.
Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol pot, Marx, Engels, Chavez, etc.
Wake UP!
Shabtai
Hawke
>> While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
>> citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
>> states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
>> and/or repressive behavior.
>>
>> Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
>> the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
>> real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
>> don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
>> hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>>
>> Joe
>
> Well said for the most part.
>
> But it's not about freedom.
>
> It's about owning a specific tool...a gun.
>
> Wouldn't be a laugh if more restrictive gun control came out of this?
>
> TMT
I wouldn't bet the farm on gun control getting more restrictive. Not
with the current make up of the court. The conservatives have a solid
five man majority so they will rule any way they want. What you will see
showcased here is unequivocal proof the the justices vote their politics
and law has nothing to do with their decisions. As Ed pointed out, the
conservative justices have put themselves in a box because of some
positions they took in the past and if they go against them they look
like hypocrites. But as we saw in Bush v Gore the supreme court says one
thing one day and the opposite the next. They are always against
intervening in political matters. Unless it means a Democrat will be the
president. They believe in deferring to states rights. Unless they want
to tell the states what to do. In this case the conservatives want to
deny states and local governments the right to restrict the right of the
public to have guns. That's what they will do. Then they will come up
with some kooky twisted logic to explain why they made a decision that
contradicts what they said they believe in. It's quite a show really.
Logically, if the Constitution is the supreme law and it says the right
of the people to bear shall not be infringed, then how in the hell could
states and local governments have the right to put any restrictions on
guns? Anything that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution is not
going to be under control of lesser governments. So why is there any
argument about this to begin with? Maybe it's because logic and law
don't have much in common.
Hawke
Stormin Mormon
beliefs that many Jews did.
"We would never do that to them.... they would
never do that to us."
"I'm privileged because I'm..... so I won't be
hurt." (Loyal, hard working, member of the ruling
party, etc.)
"That would never happen, here."
"They are only after those other guys."
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Shabtai" <shabta...@att.net> wrote in message
news:m8ejn.4603$wr5....@newsfe22.iad...
Eregon
news:42d2fe68-16ca-4b71...@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>> � � No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.- H
> ide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No it is not.
>
> There is no 11th Commandment saying "Thou shalt have guns".
>
> TMT
>
That's because firearms hadn't been invented yet, you flaming Mariposa.
There is one, however, that prohibits the taking of private property:
"Thou shall not steal." - the one most often broken by Demoncraps,
Liberals, and other criminals.
Eregon
89d3-a28...@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> But it's not about freedom.
Yes, it is.
That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop
the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms?
FDR came very, very close to doing just that through national censorship,
imprisonment of citizens of Asian descent, German descent, and/or Italian
descent while simultaneously striking deals with the Sicilian Mafia.
If you have difficulty understanding basic facts, go ask your latest
boyfriend for an explanation.
Doug Miller
>Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:86270aaa-5eb6-4b0a-
>89d3-a28...@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
>> But it's not about freedom.
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop
>the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms?
Precisely so. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are only scraps of
paper, and the rights they guarantee us only empty words, if we the people
lack the means to *compel* the government to honor those guarantees, should it
ever prove reluctant to do so.
Wes
>We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that it
>was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who is
>supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato
>Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange bedfellows
>indeed.
>
>Fasten your seat belt. <g>
That is an interesting mix but it won't be the first or the last time it happens.
The NRA isn't supporting it? http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13487
IIRC though, they wanted their separate block of time so maybe you know something I don't
yet. I seem to remember something about that a while back from a podcast I was listening
to. I wish I had a better memory.
I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Wes
>That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop
>the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms?
>
>FDR came very, very close to doing just that through national censorship,
>imprisonment of citizens of Asian descent, German descent, and/or Italian
>descent while simultaneously striking deals with the Sicilian Mafia.
Didn't he outlaw the possession of gold also? Yup, looked it up. I've never understood
why some consider him to be some sort of hero. He was a tyrant. Oh yes, remember his
attempt to to pack the Supreme Court? I rest my case.
Wes
Wes
>I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went.
Damn, scotusblog indicates Gura went down in flames. :(
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
What world do you live in?
Firearms were in use during the period.
You must be homeschooled...did you have your own pet dinosaur?
TMT
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Qnhjn.1$Hq...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that
>>it
>>was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who
>>is
>>supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato
>>Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange
>>bedfellows
>>indeed.
>>
>>Fasten your seat belt. <g>
>
>
> That is an interesting mix but it won't be the first or the last time it
> happens.
>
> The NRA isn't supporting it?
> http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13487
> IIRC though, they wanted their separate block of time so maybe you know
> something I don't
> yet. I seem to remember something about that a while back from a podcast
> I was listening
> to. I wish I had a better memory.
The NRA is arguing not to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases, but to
incorporate the 2nd via "substantive due process." This is a little weird
for an organization that has an expansive view of the Bill of Rights, but
they're apparently afraid of the consequences -- if the Slaughterhouse Cases
are overturned, it will reverse some other old cases and essentially give
everyone in the US the same rights. 'Can't have that, ya' know. <g>
>
> I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went.
>
> Wes
There will be plenty of buzz tonight and tomorrow. So far, it sounds like
Scalia is favoring substantive due process. And the liberals are still in
opposition.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Wes, he's considered by historians to be one of the three or four best
presidents because he kept the country from falling into rebellion during
the Great Depression, and because he got us through WWII.
What's the "tyrant" stuff? It was a time of war. Whenever we've been in a
REAL war, the president in office has done similar things.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went.
>
> Damn, scotusblog indicates Gura went down in flames. :(
From what I've heard, that was just on the issue of whether to reverse the
Slaughterhouse Cases. That won't influence whether the 2nd in incorporated.
It was a long shot, anyway, and Cato knew it.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
I'll sleep a bit better tonight, which will come shortly.
I want to hear the oral arguments. If you find a link to a mp3 when it is released, please
email me. You have my active e-mail address.
Thanks,
Wes
Eregon
96dc-e75...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> What world do you live in?
Unlike you (who lives in a fantasy world) I live in the REAL world.
>
> Firearms were in use during the period.
In 4000+ BCE?
The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder until much, MUCH later, you stupid
fruit!
Hawke
Hey Wes,
If FDR was such a tyrant why was it that the American people kept
electing him to be their president, why is he considered as one of the
five best presidents in history, and why was FDR loved by the vast
majority of Americans when he was in office, and why were they
devastated when he died? If you can find the answers to those questions
that should tell you why he was a true American hero. Of course, you
could just find any old person still alive who lived in FDR's era and
they could explain it to you. I wouldn't ask any right wingers for the
answers though if you want to know the truth. By the way, both my
parents lived in that era and are still living so I have it from the
horse's mouth, so to speak.
Hawke
Joe
wrote:
>
>You flaming socialist/liberals are amazing!!!!
Whoa, before you decide to malign me, stop and think (if you are
able). What about my comment made you think I am a
"socialist/liberal"? Methinks your knee started jerking uncontrollably
as soon as you read the subject line. That left you without the
ability to read (and comprehend) what I actually wrote. I normally try
to keep my comments civil, but when you start calling me a liberal,
well, them's fightin' words, boy!
>Don't give up your freedoms so quickly!! You don't get them back.
>I wish my grandparents had guns when the SS put a gun to my
>grandfather's head.
>
>Government don't care about your rights. Government care about their
>control over YOU.
>
>Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol pot, Marx, Engels, Chavez, etc.
Don't forget that Reagan also started talking up gun control shortly
after he got out of office. Right-wing despots also favor gun control.
(And were Marx & Engels really in favor of gun control? I hadn't heard
that, though it's possible.)
Joe
Ed Huntress
I don't think there is one. There is a full transcript here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf
However, the SCOTUS Blog is where I go for summary analyses:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:cfb07195-9ed8-4d56-
> 96dc-e75801455...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > What world do you live in?
>
> Unlike you (who lives in a fantasy world) I live in the REAL world.
>
>
>
> > Firearms were in use during the period.
>
> In 4000+ BCE?
>
> The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder until much, MUCH later, you stupid
> fruit!
I thought that according to all you Religious Right types that God
knows EVERYTHING.
Wouldn't She have planned ahead and included an 11th Commandment "Thou
Shalt Have Guns"?
TMT
Eregon
news:a1a8af15-b113-4433...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 2, 7:04�pm, Eregon <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote:
>> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:cfb07195-9ed8-4d5
> 6-
>> 96dc-e75801455...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > What world do you live in?
>>
>> Unlike you (who lives in a fantasy world) I live in the REAL world.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Firearms were in use during the period.
>>
>> In 4000+ BCE?
>>
>> The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder until much, MUCH later, you
>> stupid fruit!
>
> I thought that according to all you Religious Right types that God
> knows EVERYTHING.
You should leave thought to those capable of such an ardurous feat - one
which you continually prove yourself to be totally incapable of even the
most basic forms.
>
> Wouldn't She have planned ahead and included an 11th Commandment "Thou
> Shalt Have Guns"?
>
> TMT
>
Why bother?
When it was time for them people were inspired to invent them as a way of
keeping the numbers of idiots under control.
After all, the same thing applies to fly swatters and automobiles. <Evil
Grin>
BTW, you fatuous fruit, there are over 600 Commandments spelled out in
the Book of Exodus rather that just 10. Failure to obey each and every
one of them could cause you to return as a Lemming. <Very Evil Grin>
Shabtai
freedoms in this country was mis-directed at what appears to be the
initial poster, instead of some of the stupid replies.
Next time I should read more closely, instead of pulling the trigger
so quickly. Sorry. Thank you for correcting me in such a civil manner.
Shabtai
Ignoramus5280
out what is the supreme court's decision. Thanks
azotic
"Ignoramus5280" <ignora...@NOSPAM.5280.invalid> wrote in message
news:fa6dndirEruFmBPW...@giganews.com...
> Guys, I was busy with my lathe, can someone tell me when we will find
> out what is the supreme court's decision. Thanks
Sometime in June.
Best Regards
Tom.
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus5280" <ignora...@NOSPAM.5280.invalid> wrote in message
news:fa6dndirEruFmBPW...@giganews.com...
> out what is the supreme court's decision. Thanks
Probably early June.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
Hitler was loved by the Germans until the war went badly for Germany.
I do not understand why he kept being elected and why the Germans
loved him so. If you have the answers to that, you might have the
answers to FDR reelection, etc.
Dan
RBnDFW
A very good answer.
Works for Mussolini also.
Hirohito was pretty well-thought of by the Japs, although the electoral
process was a bit iffy ;)
RBnDFW
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:57:01 -0600, RBnDFW <burkh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not
>>> local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership.
>>>
>>> It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time
>>> Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights"
>>> over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will
>>> conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
>>> citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
>>> states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
>>> and/or repressive behavior.
>>>
>>> Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
>>> the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
>>> real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
>>> don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
>>> hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>> The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the
>> government is constrained from limiting those rights.
>> The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights.
>> No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.
>
> inalienable rights", where is the list? What, exactly, are those
> rights?
That's the point - there is no list.
A list would be limiting, in itself.
> (Besides, I don't think that the issue here is about rights granted by
> any "creator". I think it concerns rights established by the - mere
> mortal - framers of the Constitution for the protection of the
> citizens.)
Those rights are alluded to in the Declaration of Independence as
granted by the Creator. While no deity is credited in the Constitution,
the underlying presumption is that there are basic rights intrinsic in
all humans, and that all remain inviolate.
As to the two arguments in McDonald, I find it interesting that Gura's'
P&I argument was dismissed out of hand, while latecomer NRA's due
process argument looks like it will carry the day.
jk
What kind of idiot thinks the Bill of rights was written in 4000 (+ or
-) BC?
jk
Eregon
news:ivd0p5horn44e8vmj...@4ax.com:
Turd Munching Troll was attempting to introduce a religious red herring.
:)
Wes
>Guys, I was busy with my lathe, can someone tell me when we will find
>out what is the supreme court's decision. Thanks
Don't worry, get your lathe going. It will be warm outside when the decision is
announced. Heck, your CNC BP might be running too. :)
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or Bush's recent reelection.
TMT
Hawke
Hitler was only elected once. After that he took over as an unelected
dictator. That's a bit different from FDR's case where he was
democratically elected four times. Germans loved Hitler at first because
they were in a horrible depression when he took over and he gave them
jobs. Government jobs, by the way. Oh, and when Hitler died the German
people weren't sad like Americans were when FDR died. Comparing Hitler
to FDR is a fools errand. You find little or nothing in common between them.
Hawke