Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 62

Thread: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

  1. #31
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    He was talking out of his ass. Every Pro-2A person I know supports all of the Consitution.
    Selectively interpreted to exclude things they don't like.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    As an originalist I oppose federal judicial interference in the right of the states to regulate firearms.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,785

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Neither does the one to whom you were replying.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  4. #34
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    So what? There's no right to have children in there either. Here's a quick civics lesson for you: the Constitution doesn't spell out what rights the people have, it spells out what rights the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has (see the 9th and 10th Amendments). And the Federal government simply doesn't have the Constitutional authority to dictate what you can and cannot put into your own body. Why do you think they had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol? Because without it, the Federal government didn't have that authority. And they still don't.

    So I repeat: people who are pro-2nd Amendment and pro-Drug War are inconsistent WRT rights of the People they do and do not support.
    The Constitution does spell out the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and explicitly forbids this right form being infringed. Even if a solid argument could be made for eliminating or restricting this right, government could not legitimately do so without first amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

    There is no right spelled out in the Constitution to abuse harmful drugs. There is no compelling social benefit to allowing such abuse. There is a great interest that society has in preventing such abuse, as much as reasonably possible.

    There is no valid comparison here, between the right to keep and bear arms, and the “right” that you want to assert to abuse drugs.

    I do agree with you that the federal government has no authority to regulate drug abuse, that this belongs to the states.

    But there is no inconsistency in defending an explicit Constitutional right that strengthens those who exercise it, and strengthens society as a whole; while denying a “right” which is found nowhere in the Constitution, and the exercise of which is only harmful to those who exercise it, and to society as a whole.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  5. #35
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Selectively interpreted to exclude things they don't like.
    No, you include things you want, that no one who wrote the document ever dreamed of.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    This is your opinion. Do not try to pass it off as fact.
    Then, enlighten us, what is the 2A saying?

    Let me guess, the second amendment means that the state can take away all guns?

  7. #37
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    I expect that, ultimately, the Supreme Court would allow all gun rights abolished in fairly rapid sequence.

  8. #38
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,779

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    I expect that, ultimately, the Supreme Court would allow all gun rights abolished in fairly rapid sequence.
    depends who appoints the next few USSC justices. If Scalia, and Kennedy are replaced by more Kagans, I am sure Heller will be reversed or limited. If RBG and Breyer are replaced by more Alitos then the 2A might last a few decades longer. If RBG an Breyer are replaced with a couple more CTs then I suspect the idiotic HUGHES amendment and the NFA will be thrown out

    CT is the biggest 2A supporter on the court



  9. #39
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,837

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Not with the dozen or more Democratic senators who take turns it seems to help filibuster laws like Toomey/Manchin.

    Right off the top, Baucus/Walsh, Heitkamp, Landrieu, Gillibrand,
    PRYOR, Hagan, Begich, HARRY REID and Manchin come to mind as strong gun folks.

    Several of them sustained the filibuster on T/M.
    9 + 45 would be 54 Senators sustaining any filibuster.

    Except RINOs like Kirk from my state are squishy, like Toomey on Toomey/Manchin.

    Anyway, this Roberts Court is light years ahead of the Rehnquist politicizers, Sandra Day O'Connor now recants .
    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    I expect that, ultimately, the Supreme Court would allow all gun rights abolished in fairly rapid sequence.
    Physics is Phun

  10. #40
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,634

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    There is no enumerated Constitutional right to drug abuse.
    Common mistake made by those who don't understand the document they quote nor the thoughts of our Founders on listing a few of the Citizen's Rights.

    The Constitution doesn't limit the RIGHTS of Citizens, it limits the Federal Government primarily and the States is some part. Several Founders thought listing a few basic ones would have yahoos in later years claiming they were the only Rights Citizens have. It seems to be an attempt to limit a Citizens Rights in areas the CONs don't endorse to try and claim if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution it doesn't exist.

    Next the 10th Amendment was a stroke of genius, the Founders knew times would change and a way to acknowledge this was needed.

    Under the 10th A there should never be a need to create an amendment to ACKNOWLEDGE Citizen Rights, such as women voting, slaves as citizens, gays as equal in marriage and the law, but rather anything that limits Citizen Rights, such as Prohibition, MUST be an amendment.

    But just because the Constitution doesn't list each and every Right a Citizen holds doesn't mean the Right doesn't exist.

    Just my take on the War on Drugs- it is UnConstitutional. Equal treatment under the law. Cigarettes and alcohol are regulated, their use all by itself is not a crime. Cause harm while under the influence of alcohol and there are penalties. Alcohol is addictive, cigarettes are addictive, both cause bodily harm with even moderate use.

    Drugs should be regulated and penalties by the Government should focus on actions that harm while under the influence.

    If it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg....

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •