Yep, They're Coming to Take Our Guns!

[O Really]

Another ruling for the gun lobby...

Relying on Heller, "...a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois — the only state where it had remained entirely illegal.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said state lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry."

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/articl ... 108504.php

[Reality]

Vred said; "So much for states' rights.' You should tell that to O Great Leader.

Obama scolds Michigan governor for ’right-to-work’ legislation

Whether states want to declare themselves as right-to-work jurisdictions is wholly outside the president’s control. His time would be better spent doing his job which, at this juncture, would be negotiating with Congress over the looming fiscal cliff.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2012/12/11/ ... tion-10904

[rstrong]

Vred said; "So much for states' rights.' You should tell that to O Great Leader.

Obama scolds Michigan governor for ’right-to-work’ legislation

Because mere criticism is a violation of states' rights, and no other President has ever criticized a state policy.

Likewise you'll never - no sir, not ever - see a state governor criticize Washington, but that would violate the federal government's rights.

[Reality]

rstrong, the Gov of MI didn't write the rules. Those guys way back then did.

So Vred, why is the fiscal cliff not an urgency for OGL or are you gearing up for the blame game like he is? The pubs cannot work the problem in isolation and neither can OGL.

The pubs do not have a 747 at their disposal to escape Washington and cry to the masses like OGL does.

OGL should keep his nose out of State Business and scolding the Gov is an abuse of OGL's position. If you don't think his action is interferring, what would you call it?

[O Really]

So much for states' rights. Cue the con uproar over activist courts . . .

Actually we like jurists who are "activist" in upholding a constitutional right violated by state or local laws; this was just such a decision.

Activist decisions are those that are whole cloth nonsense like abortion rights, early affirmative action decisions,
Brown v. B. Education, Perry v. Schwarzenegger and many others. Each of these have little constitutional basis and should not even be within the scope of the court's powers to decide.

You need to read not only the original text of the Constitution, but prior Supreme Court decisions about it (which are also Constitutional). Each decision has to be made with consideration of applicable precedent. The examples you mentioned were.

[O Really]

That may be how it works, but I disagree vehemently with stare decisis. The idiotic decisions of an activist court do not add to or detract from the superiority of the Constitution.

Allowing such nonsense means that we are ruled by unelected dictators in black robes, not legislators selected by the people.

You wouldn't really like them to just make it up as they go along would you? Or maybe you would. Anyway, they don't. One cannot simply go to the original text of the Constitution and apply a line verbatim without some context. For example, how can you rule on a Fourth Amendment issue regarding police searching a person's cellphone records if you only go by the original literal text:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Since electronic devises are not specifically stated, does that mean that cellphone records are not protected? What is included in "effects"? What constitutes "unreasonable" or who decides what "unreasonable" is? If you've got a better answer than "the highest Court in the land" let's hear it.

[Stinger]

So much for states' rights. Cue the con uproar over activist courts . . .

Actually we like jurists who are "activist" in upholding a constitutional right violated by state or local laws;

So, only white property owners should vote, we should have slaves, and women should be treated as property and denied the vote?

That was all in the Constitution, straight from the founding fathers, and passes all "original intent" considerations with flying colors.

You're such a man of the 21st century.

[rstrong]

A few years ago there as a major uproar over the court battle to disconnect Terri Schiavo from life support. The far right was full of faux outrage over "activist judges."

Here in reality the judges made their decisions based on a solid foundation of previous case history, of similar decisions in similar cases. The faux outrage was because they were NOT being "activist judges."

[Stinger]

O Really already did, and you're still wingnutty, vulgar and childish.

I'm not a sheep, they watch Faux Noise.

Isn't Pissant 62 the hypocritical whiner who tries (and fails) to claim moral high ground by (falsely) claiming that he only trashtalks in response to provocation?

[Reality]

Nope. Partisan 62 conveys a response that none of the left can refute. The truth hurts doesn't it "left"!

[Stinger]

Nope. Partisan 62 conveys a response that none of the left can refute. The truth hurts doesn't it "left"!

State one "truth" that Pissant 62 "conveyed" that none of the left can refute.



Whooooosh. There she goes.

Truth can't hurt you. You never get within 10 miles of it.

[O Really]

Why would cell records and cell calls be unprotected? The text in the 4th is general enough to apply to anything from parchment or linen and ink wells to high tech gadgets or even telepathy in the future. And a decision can be attributed to his specific constitutional provision without deference to some obscure post Constitution court decision.

...

By the way, the decisions that I listed before (abortion rights, early affirmative action decisions,
Brown v. B. Education, Perry v. Schwarzenegger) ARE examples of, as you say, jurists that "make it up as they go along".

The Amendment may seem broad, but our entire discussion is whether we could live with a literal reading of original text. Cell tech cannot casually be found in "persons, houses, papers, and effects...", without somebody making a decision as to what is or might be included in "effects" since information held in cell phones is clearly not persons, houses, or papers.

As to those cases, come back after you've read the actual decisions. They're all squeaky clean legally, although certainly subject to disagreement from some. Hell, even not all Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, meaning that legal experts may disagree on the same set of facts and law. Another reason we need the Supremes.

[bannination]

What, the cons still haven't picked up their Obama guns? You know, he does deliver!

[mike]

...
As to those cases, come back after you've read the actual decisions. They're all squeaky clean legally, although certainly subject to disagreement from some. Hell, even not all Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, meaning that legal experts may disagree on the same set of facts and law. Another reason we need the Supremes.

Even at that, Counselor, with the Citizens United v. FEC case, I fear we have created Kings far above the intended checks and balances.

But that would be a whole 'nother thread, eh?

[O Really]

...
As to those cases, come back after you've read the actual decisions. They're all squeaky clean legally, although certainly subject to disagreement from some. Hell, even not all Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, meaning that legal experts may disagree on the same set of facts and law. Another reason we need the Supremes.

Even at that, Counselor, with the Citizens United v. FEC case, I fear we have created Kings far above the intended checks and balances.

But that would be a whole 'nother thread, eh?

Agreed, although I suspect "checks" is exactly what was intended, thereby enhancing candidates "balances."
BTW, the fact that I defend the process doesn't mean I necessarily agree with all the results.

[Stinger]

Don't know a "Pissant 62"....on the other hand, I'm the poster that has kicked your fat ass so many times that it is currently higher than your shoulder, explaining the feces in your ears and mouth....hence the crap above.

Your overinflated opinion of yourself based on so little achievement, so little accomplishment, so little education, so little intelligence, and so little merit is just funnier than hell. You're the rough equivalent of a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on its mind.

I say we start calling this delusional dumbfuck "the Black Knight." They have so much in common.

[Stinger]

So much for states' rights. Cue the con uproar over activist courts . . .

Actually we like jurists who are "activist" in upholding a constitutional right violated by state or local laws;

So, only white property owners should vote, we should have slaves, and women should be treated as property and denied the vote?

That was all in the Constitution, straight from the founding fathers, and passes all "original intent" considerations with flying colors.

You're such a man of the 21st century.

No, the "original intent" also allowed AMENDMENTS that addressed these issues in the proper way.....do you people ever read anything at all? I believe that BRN shut down its forum because they were ashamed to have the most God awful stupid leftists on their site. Try to prove it a little less often.

Good for the amendments. The framers' original intent was that only white property owners could vote, we should own other people, and women were chattel who should not vote. Virtually all white men could vote by 1850 rather that the 10 to 16% of white men who were property owners. That was done without constitutional amendment. The fact that we have amendments that change latter two doesn't change the fact that original intent was to allow people to own other people and to keep women as property with no right to vote.

[mike]

...
As to those cases, come back after you've read the actual decisions. They're all squeaky clean legally, although certainly subject to disagreement from some. Hell, even not all Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, meaning that legal experts may disagree on the same set of facts and law. Another reason we need the Supremes.

Even at that, Counselor, with the Citizens United v. FEC case, I fear we have created Kings far above the intended checks and balances.

But that would be a whole 'nother thread, eh?

Agreed, although I suspect "checks" is exactly what was intended, thereby enhancing candidates "balances."
BTW, the fact that I defend the process doesn't mean I necessarily agree with all the results.

Duly noted, Counselor. I agree. Thanks.

Clever bit of juxtaposition regarding the terms ... nice ...

[Stinger]

From Ezra Klein:

12 Facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States:

1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.
2. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.
3. Lots of guns don’t necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland.*
4. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.
6. The South is the most violent region in the United States.
7. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.
8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
10. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular.
11. But particular policies to control guns often are.
12. Shootings don’t tend to substantially affect views on gun control.

LINK

Item #3 was covered and revised in a follow-up article. LINK

Switzerland and Israel have actually toughened gun laws and reduced the number of guns in the hands of civilians. One thing that resulted from that was a 60% reduction in suicide among Israel's military.

Israel requires a demonstrable need for its permit, the permit has to be updated every six months, and Israel rejects 40% of its applicants.

[Stinger]

Don't know a "Pissant 62"....on the other hand, I'm the poster that has kicked your fat ass so many times that it is currently higher than your shoulder, explaining the feces in your ears and mouth....hence the crap above.

Your overinflated opinion of yourself based on so little achievement, so little accomplishment, so little education, so little intelligence, and so little merit is just funnier than hell. You're the rough equivalent of a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on its mind.

I say we start calling this delusional dumbfuck "the Black Knight." They have so much in common.

Regardless of my opinion of myself or anyone else, I have SHOWN you by rhetorically and verbally crushing your feeble and stupid arguments.





Man, you're killing me here. That was too funny.

What color is the sky in your world?

That much is demonstrated in your shitmouth insults that show your frustration.




Please stop. My sides are hurting.

"Shitmouth insults"? I guess you done rhetorically showed me something again.


Whatever my other "achievement" might be, taking you down was easy....because you always helped.

You have no "achievements" other than supplying bellylaughs for the rest of us with your imaginary, self-proclaimed victories.

Perhaps you could come up with one instance where you actually bested anyone in an argument. All I can remember are your epic fails followed by your riotous "victory" laps.

Tilting at imaginary windmills and claiming victory after your arms and legs have been removed and your argument rendered as useless as you are. Don Quixote, the Black Knight Buffoon.

Thanks for the chuckles, chucklehead.

And don't forget to post an example of your besting anyone about anything.