Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That response does not address the question. Does the 2nd Amendment convey a right to use guns in robberies, murders, rapes, etc.? That's the implication of making this a 2nd amendment issue, as OP does.
It convey's your right to defend yourself from all forms of evil.
The right to self preservation overrules all law.
I quoted another post of yours because it's clear you want this to be a 2A issue when it isn't, as I said and as someone else has also said. You seem concerned that him saying what he did in this strict context will transfer to other contexts when the word "gun" is involved, when you think the amendment will be invoked. That's an odd fear if you understand the context here.
The 2nd issue is a secondary issue. When you argue something is acceptable because it makes us safer that can apply to a lot of things. A restriction on our freedom of speech as one example.
Quote:
You specifically said, combining your bolded sentences above, "does he think an unconstitutional law is okay as long as he feels it makes us safer?" No, this doesn't mean he is a threat to the Second Amendment because this case is in the context of using guns to commit crimes, which is NOT constitutionally protected, and whether "crimes of violence" is clear enough language, which he thought it was. You are taking this way out of context and turning it into something it is not and I suspect it is to further a pro 2A agenda.
And did the law keep us safer?[b] Does it even matter whether or not it did?
No, so why mention that?
Quote:
Either way this is in the context of crimes where guns are used, it is not 2A territory because the amendment does not allow us to use guns during the commission of crimes. In this statement and in this context he is not infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners doing only lawful things. He is concerned about people using guns to commit violent crimes, which he found clear in the statute, and he thought it wasn't vague therefore he found the public safety aspect (and the fact that Congress now has to amend the statute meaning violent crimes committed with the addition of guns are now unprotected from that extra punishment) concerning. That's all, I don't see the issue you do.
I simply warned those who are concerned about the "safety" argument, that they better not put their trust in Kavanaugh.
The case was ruled unconstitutional because of an unequal application of the law.
Does the 2nd Amendment convey a right to use guns in robberies, murders, rapes, etc.? That's the implication of making this a 2nd amendment issue, as OP does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
It convey's your right to defend yourself from all forms of evil.
The right to self preservation overrules all law.
Just think if the slaves had AK-47's?
I feel like I'm a host on Meet the Press here. Is that a 'yes' or a 'no?'
If his natural inclination would have been to start leaning left (or "activist" if you prefer) as his career progressed, he's not going to suddenly start deciding things different just because of how he was treated in his confirmation.
People in general become more conservative as they grow older and become wiser. For example paying high taxes while others get a free lunch. When you are young you like the free lunch.
There is an example of a judge or two on the SCOTUS that have shifted to the center. I think there is more vetting today on judicial philosophy so its less likely the current crop will shift like that.
I feel like I'm a host on Meet the Press here. Is that a 'yes' or a 'no?'
You are confusing liberties with rights.
Everyone has the right to arms. Everyone has the liberty to do as they wish with those arms. Some people are good and some people are inherently evil and oppressive.
Your right is to defend yourself, your family and your property. Your liberty is to go stick up a liquor store. It is also the right and the liberty for the guy behind the counter, to take those(you in this case) threatening his life, out of the genepool.
Or you can be unarmed and crawl into the fetal position.
Doesn't the idea that this is a 2nd Amendment issue carry the implication that the 2nd Amendment conveys a right to use guns in the commission of gas-station robberies?
You're right, it doesn't. The"implication" is absurd, as everyone knows.
Quote:
Does anyone actually think that????
Not that I know of. Everyone I know is capable of tying his shoes without assistance. That puts their cognitive ability far beyond the level required to believe your "implication" above.
Quote:
I'd like to hear responses from some of the pro-2nd-Amendment posters from the thread....
Why? What do they have to do with your absurd theory?
If you really want to pursue your theory, you might inquire among the liberals on the board, some of whom have actually put forth theories fully as absurd as yours. Perhaps you can find common cause there.....
As I've said before, it would be hilarious if, after having spent so much time and effort defending Kavanaugh, the conservatives ended up completely regretting it because he turned out to be a liberal.
It has happened several times in my memory, where republican presidents have stacked the Supreme Court with people they thought would dependably trample on the rights of those in the opposition. And then it turned out that they were flawed by having personal integrity and pride in how they practiced their profession.
It has happened several times in my memory, where republican presidents have stacked the Supreme Court with people they thought would dependably trample on the rights of those in the opposition. And then it turned out that they were flawed by having personal integrity and pride in how they practiced their profession.
Would this ruling had been different with Scalia on the court as opposed to Gorsuch? Maybe. Funny how that works.
This law concerns crimes committed while in possession of a firearm.
Aside from being vague, the only place that law really goes wrong, is where it allows criminals to get off with lighter sentences if they DON'T have a gun.
An assault is an assault, a rape is a rape, a murder is a murder. Doesn't matter what tool you use to help commit it.
If you feel that someone who commits the crime with a gun needs a very harsh sentence, you're probably right. But if you feel the criminal needs a less harsh sentence if he doesn't have a gun at the crime scene, you're probably wrong. He should have the same book thrown at him and get the same harsh penalty, either way.
The same thinking should be applied to so-called "hate" crimes.
There is already laws against murder, assault etc. Why is "hate" crime needed? Who cares WHY someone kills or assaults someone. And HOW is "hate" proven?
Would this ruling had been different with Scalia on the court as opposed to Gorsuch? Maybe. Funny how that works.
According to the article no. Scalia felt the same way on a prior ruling.
This is not a second amendment issue, I don't see that as having anything tp do with the ruling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
