The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Oh purleeease.

And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.

Politicians don't have to fear guns because they have people around them with guns.

[glatt]

Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by glatt

Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.

From AR15.com

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Justice Scalia then turns to the prefatory clause – “A well regulated militia.”

First, the militia clauses do not give the power to create a militia, as DC argued. The militia clauses of the constitution give Congress the ability “to call forth the militia,” and not to create it. The militia pre-dates the Constitution, for it is merely all able-bodied men who are capable of bearing arms. Justice Scalia then does exactly what I was hoping he would do:

Ah yes, victory. “Well regulated” means disciplined and trained, not federally regulated.

The dissenters both in this case and in the lower court believe that “the security of a free state” meant States in the sense of Florida, Alaksa, etc. Justice Scalia corrects them. “The security of a free state” means “the security of a free polity” – a free nation, etc. Not individual American states.

He also throws a bone to the keyboard revolutionaries amongst us.

All this being said, Justice Scalia wraps up his analysis of the textual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by glatt

Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.

There was absolutely NOTHING activist about this decision. The mention of a militia was to list one of the many reasons that the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

The term "the people" in every other part of the Constitution refers to individuals. The activists were the ones who were trying to twist the 2nd amendment to change "the right of the people" into "the right of those belonging to militias".

A right is something we're born with. It is something we don't need permission to do. We have an individual RIGHT to keep and bear any weapons we can obtain honestly. We are born with that right. No other person, group of people, or government has any legitimate authority to place limits on that right, or to force us to jump through hoops in order to exercise it.

None of those who voted with the minority on this decision or with the majority on the Kelo decision belongs on the Supreme Court. They are a disgrace to the court, and to America. They should be shot as traitors.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Politicians don't have to fear guns because they have people around them with guns.

Or you could be like Senator Feinstein, one of the biggest gun grabbers in the senate, and speak out of both sides of your mouth.


From http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html (emphasis at the end is mine)
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on terrorism and self-defense:
The following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:
"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html

[Griff]

The SC is putting together a pretty decent pro-liberty run between the Gitmo slap and the 2nd Amendment defense.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

The SC is putting together a pretty decent pro-liberty run between the Gitmo slap and the 2nd Amendment defense.

Except the same justices didn't vote with the majority.

Roberts and Alito sure weren't going to vote for the detainees. While tied to the administration, these guys were trying to define how long someone can be choked, not whether or not it's justice.

Kennedy seems to be the one most clearly looking at the issue outside of an ideological haze.

Maybe McCain the 'maverick' could find another Kennedy and keep it towards the center. However, he's making noises like he will cave and appoint another Thomas or Alito, ideological -kissers who love corporate freedom, but have difficulty with the messier questions raised by the Constitutional guarantees against government interference. Guns? Sure. How about porn, abortion, privacy, states rights to enact tougher laws than the Feds?

It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama does win and they have to be consistent and vote in favor of giving more power to a liberal adminstration instead of the current one. Will Alito and Roberts be willing to extend the same authority to Obama as they did to GWB?

It might be worth voting for him just to see what happens.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Oh purleeease.

After a moment's thought, I must reply No. I have studied the matter, and I know more about it than you do. No shame in that, is there? Do keep in mind, Dana, that your ignorance and your disbelief do absolutely nothing whatsoever to reduce my knowledge -- and have done even less to halt a genocide. I think all in all, you'd prefer genocides stop, do you not? Well, this is the only known way how -- armed people don't suffer genocides. Don't make illegitimate statements in the presence of the more knowledgeable, okay? They'll gnaw your legs off all over the Internet.

And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.

In my experience of the issue, spanning a couple decades now, there is no such thing as "duly afraid." There are those who volubly pretend such exists, but their protestations don't stand examination. The very potential for arms to cause the harm is the very potential to prevent it. It's not merely a wash, but other effects of arms ownership on the body politic mean that an armed people is a civilized people. Especially so if you accept that the state crime of genocide (for it's very hard to get it done without the support of a state's power) is the very acme of uncivilized behavior.

[Sundae]

Oh Dana.
You've just proved your genocidal tendencies.

The streets of your ward would run with blood if you had your way. I suggest you resign immediately to spend more time with your family.

[Flint]

The power for you to shut up.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

The power for you to shut up.

It'll never happen in your lifetime. Get over yourself.

[DanaC]

but other effects of arms ownership on the body politic mean that an armed people is a civilized people.

Then my people must be a deeply uncivilised one.

I have studied the matter, and I know more about it than you do. No shame in that, is there? Do keep in mind, Dana, that your ignorance and your disbelief do absolutely nothing whatsoever to reduce my knowledge -- and have done even less to halt a genocide.

I see no shame in knowing less than another about a subject. I would, however, contend that you are pulling your knowledge out of your backside and as such I don't consider your opinion to be more valid or worthwhile than mine.

How, precisely, have you halted a genocide? Since your contention appears to be that my ignorance has prevented me doing the same.

Don't make illegitimate statements in the presence of the more knowledgeable, okay? They'll gnaw your legs off all over the Internet.

I know you are, but what am I?

[Troubleshooter]

Guns aren't a broad solution.

Guns simply give you two additional options.

When all of the non-violent options are used up what do you do?

The unarmed either become armed or they become statistics.

The armed have the additional choices of bargaining or fighting.

The unarmed have no say in the matter.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Guns aren't a broad solution.

Guns simply give you two additional options.

When all of the non-violent options are used up what do you do?

The unarmed either become armed or they become statistics.

The armed have the additional choices of bargaining or fighting.

The unarmed have no say in the matter.

When all of the non-violent options to do what are used up? To control another nation? To stop another nation from building weapons even though they are sovereign and don't require our permission to do it?

Guns are merely a way of using force. No force is justified unless it is defensive force, meaning you only use force against those who have attacked you and never using it against anyone else.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Radar

When all of the non-violent options to do what are used up? To control another nation? To stop another nation from building weapons even though they are sovereign and don't require our permission to do it?

Guns are merely a way of using force. No force is justified unless it is defensive force, meaning you only use force against those who have attacked you and never using it against anyone else.

Slow your roll girlfriend.

I was speaking specifically in reference to citizens being able to protect themselves whether it's from other citizens or a tyrannical government.