Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,760 posts, read 14,656,809 times
Reputation: 18529

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Yep. An example mentioned here, is their ruling that the 2nd applied only to people actively in a militia. A real leader finally showed up (Antonin Scalia), and wrote in 2008 that it wasn't so. The right to Keep and bear arms is an individual right.

More to come.
Well, you're right about one thing: Scalia is a politician, not a judge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,822,592 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Do I hear the sound of a newly-caught fish, flopping desperately around on the dock, trying to find water that isn't there?

Why yes, I believe I do.
I see you realized the lunacy that you support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:31 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,785,325 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
Well, you're right about one thing: Scalia is a politician, not a judge.
Do you know what one of the most significant changes wrought by the 2008 DC v. Heller decision, was?

Liberals finally quit insisting that "The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court tells us it says!"

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:35 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,776,567 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
And it stated that this was because the justices (mistakenly) thought that Miller's short-barrelled shotgun was not a type of weapon commonly used in the military.

As pointed out, such weapons actually were used, by troops on both side, in the most recent major war, World War I.

And the reason that mattered, was because they were ruling that weapons that WERE used in the military, were protected for civilian use under the 2nd amendment.

I'm not the one who "isn't reading the case right".
Two of the justices in the ruling were in the military. Whether they knew about the use of those weapons, no one knows, and since no further proceedings happened, you can't arbitrarily claim your position is correct, based on what the case states. It doesn't matter whether shotguns were in fact used. That's not facts in evidence, and thus is not applicable to the ruling.

And District of Columbia v. Heller, the only Supreme Court ruling directly addressing the 2nd Amendment's application to citizens, states that it is not an unlimited right and restrictions are allowed.

That ruling was also not entirely completely, seeing as it was their 1st look at the Amendment, meaning it will be modified over the years. Which direction, we don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,274,487 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
The list of things the supreme court got wrong, is pretty high.. . .and can be fixed later, when real leaders show up.
You are, of course, suggesting that if a conservative justice either dies or retires Obama will appoint some progressive person to the bench? Judging by his earlier appointments I would say that all 5 - 4 decisions will become progressive in nature. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:38 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,785,325 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
you can't arbitrarily claim your position is correct, based on what the case states.
That's why I'm not doing it arbitrarily, but instead basing it on what the case states.

My, there are quite a few fish gasping and flopping around on this particular dock today, aren't there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:42 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,776,567 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
You are, of course, suggesting that if a conservative justice either dies or retires Obama will appoint some progressive person to the bench? Judging by his earlier appointments I would say that all 5 - 4 decisions will become progressive in nature. Right?
That's generally what President's do. They appoint justices with a similar ideology to themselves. It's one of the most powerful abilities of the President and has long lasting implications. The court is currently Conservative leaning. So yes, if a Scalia or Thomas died, the court would likely shift left with Obama's new appointment. However, Ginsburg will be the next to retire, and she's the most liberal justice, so the Court won't be swinging left anytime soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:44 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,776,567 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
That's why I'm not doing it arbitrarily, but instead basing it on what the case states.

My, there are quite a few fish gasping and flopping around on this particular dock today, aren't there?
The case doesn't state what you are claiming it states. Miller in fact says restrictions on certain types of guns is perfectly Constitutional. Heller further clarifies the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited and can be restricted.

Thus, nothing in the case law supports your claim that the 2nd Amendment allows any and all weapons to be possessed by private citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 11:15 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,785,325 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
But since no one stood up for the Defense to point out the falsehood of the Government's statements, the Justices rubber-stamped most of them into an Opinion.

The Opinion of the Court is loaded with phrases indicating the Justices' frustration over not hearing any arguments from the Defense. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that...", and "...we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees...", and "...it is not withing judicial notice that...". This is as close as any Justice has ever gotten to protesting the complete lack of counterarguments to the Prosecution's falsehoods.

But the trial had to go on, as scheduled. And even with the lopsided "evidence" presented, the Justices were still able to salvage a ruling that civilian ownership and usage of military and military-style weapons, at least, enjoyed the protection of the 2nd amendment.
I've never seen such twisted language in a court opinion like this. The Justices were practically saying, "The only reason we are saying any of this, is because the usual counterarguments we expect, were never given, and we have to rule on what we DID hear, incomplete and one-sided though it is."

Whether they knew it was also false, is unknown. But irrelevant. They ruled as they did, and that's final.

The paranoid gun-haters have been very careful not to let any direct challenge to the US v. Miller ruling, get to the Supreme Court every since. Who can blame them? Then both sides would be presented, and the decision immediately reversed.

And the whole house of cards the gun-haters have built on this one case, would come tumbling down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 02:18 PM
 
4,738 posts, read 4,435,394 times
Reputation: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Yep. An example mentioned here, is their ruling that the 2nd applied only to people actively in a militia. A real leader finally showed up (Antonin Scalia), and wrote in 2008 that it wasn't so. The right to Keep and bear arms is an individual right.

More to come.

Seriously Antonin Scalia?

Thats the model?

The same guy who goes all slippery slope argument on a pricenton student, then is surprised that the student buy into the fallacious argument? What else has this crazy-ko-nope done?

Plus he isn't a leader. . leaders lead. he is just one of 7 people, and right now. . .about the craziest and most out of touch on the court.

Of course. . .you can add his 2nd amendment to other nut bag comments he made.

I hear that he has a 19.2% chance of dying in the next 4-years.. . .so maybe that craziness can end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top