Page 21 of 64 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #201
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Incorporation, however, is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states.
    How so?

    The states cannot violate the constitution; no part of the 'states rights' or 10th amendment arguments assume that they can. If the constitution specifies that certain rights are protected from action against them by the federal government, and then the constitution then expands these protections to action sby the states, the only power lost is that of the states to infringe on the rights of the people.

    How is that bad? Isn't the purpose of government to protect our rights from those that would infringe them?

  2. #202
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    And there's no doubt that being born and raised in Chicago, and still living here, is the main factor in my hypocricy. I know I'd have more problems with the ruling if it didn't give me back my rights directly. So I reconcile that by simply admitting to my hypocricy, and explaining my rasoning for willingly engaging in hypocricy.
    I wish more people had your intellectual honesty, Tucker. Personally, I cannot abide the hypocritical nature of these recent decisions, because I see the slippery slope that such an incoherent jurisprudence can lead to. Scalia is a very persuasive jurist, but when he "uses his powers for evil" so to speak, it undermines both his commitment to his textualist philosophy and the foundation of the decision itself, which in turn undermines the existence of the right itself. This is not simply a question of ends justifying the means, but the means could at some point in the future come to endanger the end. While I support the outcome, I abhor the contradiction. If this decision was rooted in a "living Cosntitution" theory, no such hypocrisy would be necessary.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-29-10 at 04:30 PM.

  3. #203
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    This is where you have a legitimate arugment about Judicial activism. The bill of rights was intended as a limitation upon the Federal government. The 14th allowed them to be "incorporated" to the states.

    There is a great deal of irony in this whole debate.

    Originally, the idea that the state or local governments would try to disarm their own citizens was a pretty absurd notion. They felt the greater risk of this would be from the federal government, not state and local governments.

    Where the irony comes in is that the 2nd was, in part, about preventing the Feds from having too much authority over the States and the people. The presumption, as described in Federalist 46, was that an armed populous could combine to create a much larger fighting force than the Feds could gather (about 25 times larger) under the supervision of the State governments.

    Incorporation, however, is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states.

    This is why this ruling has been tearing me up, personally. On one hand, I'm extatic that my rights are no longer being infringed by my local government. On the other hand, my anti-federalist inclination leads me to abor the ruling as it is just a further example of federal authority extending further in scope and the authority of th estates being superceded by federal authority.

    I've admitted to having a hypocritical stance on this particular issue in the past. If I thought for a second that not incorporating the 2nd could result in de-incorporation of oter ammendmets and result in a reduction in federal authority, I'd be more than willing to forgo my individual right to bare arms for the greater good of the nation (Obviously as someone who claims to hold Anti-federalists views, I believe that a strong central government is generally detrimental.)

    But I realize that this isn't going to happen at this point. It's too far gone and there are too few people who hold views like mine. Even your "extreme" small-government types aren't nearly as extreme about it as I am.

    So I basically admit that I'm being a hypocrite on this particular subject. As I have in the past. My thinking is that if my worldview has no chance, I might as well try to keep my individual rights from being infringed in the process.

    And there's no doubt that being born and raised in Chicago, and still living here, is the main factor in my hypocricy. I know I'd have more problems with the ruling if it didn't give me back my rights directly. So I reconcile that by simply admitting to my hypocricy, and explaining my rasoning for willingly engaging in hypocricy.
    I'm not sure I understand where your hypocrisy is. I'm all for state's rights, but not when it comes to removing federal constitutional rights like freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, etc.

  4. #204
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    How so?

    The states cannot violate the constitution; no part of the 'states rights' or 10th amendment arguments assume that they can. If the constitution specifies that certain rights are protected from action against them by the federal government, and then the constitution then expands these protections to action sby the states, the only power lost is that of the states to infringe on the rights of the people.

    How is that bad? Isn't the purpose of government to protect our rights from those that would infringe them?
    The people who would infringe on our rights are the Government.

    when I say that incorporation is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states, I mean that the wording of the 14th expanded federal authority and weakened State authority.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #205
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The people who would infringe on our rights are the Government.
    Sometimes. But them we have several layers of government -- who, if not the Federal government, keeps the states from infringing on our rights?

    when I say that incorporation is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states, I mean that the wording of the 14th expanded federal authority and weakened State authority.
    This is true if you accept the idea that the states have the authority to infringe on peopel's rights.

  6. #206
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I'm not sure I understand where your hypocrisy is. I'm all for state's rights, but not when it comes to removing federal constitutional rights like freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, etc.
    I'm being hypocritical because I reject the notion of "federal constitutional rights". I see the BoR as what it was intended to be: a Restriction of Federal Authority, not a "granting of rights".

    I hold many of the same views espoused by the anti-federalists. I'm looking back in hindsight regarding their initial concerns over the adoption of th econstitution, and I see their fears not only totally justified, but that the majority of those fears they had have come to fruition.

    The arguments of people like Madison, who wanted a limited federal government but still supported the adoption Constitution, have been proven wrong (and these were teh one's that ended up swaying the anti-federalists in the end).

    The Hamiltonian, powerful federal government, mindset ended up winning.

    The Bill of Rights came into existence to appease the anti-federalists, who feared that the constitution created a Federal government that was too strong and had too much authority. The BoR wasn't meant to increase federal authority over the states by denying the States powers. It was designed to decrease Federal authority over the states and the people by denying the federal government certain powers.

    Incorporation of the Bill of rights not only contradicts that very clear intention of the BoR, it actually causes the exact opposite of what they were intended to do to happen.

    It's impossible for me to honestly reconcile my political views with any instance of incorporation of the bill of rights. Even if I personally agree that nobody should be denied those rights. My personal beliefs and my political beliefs (at a federal level) are often in conflict. It's a natural byproduct of my political ideology.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    This is where you have a legitimate arugment about Judicial activism. The bill of rights was intended as a limitation upon the Federal government. The 14th allowed them to be "incorporated" to the states.

    There is a great deal of irony in this whole debate.

    Originally, the idea that the state or local governments would try to disarm their own citizens was a pretty absurd notion. They felt the greater risk of this would be from the federal government, not state and local governments.

    Where the irony comes in is that the 2nd was, in part, about preventing the Feds from having too much authority over the States and the people. The presumption, as described in Federalist 46, was that an armed populous could combine to create a much larger fighting force than the Feds could gather (about 25 times larger) under the supervision of the State governments.

    Incorporation, however, is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states.

    This is why this ruling has been tearing me up, personally. On one hand, I'm extatic that my rights are no longer being infringed by my local government. On the other hand, my anti-federalist inclination leads me to abor the ruling as it is just a further example of federal authority extending further in scope and the authority of th estates being superceded by federal authority.

    I've admitted to having a hypocritical stance on this particular issue in the past. If I thought for a second that not incorporating the 2nd could result in de-incorporation of oter ammendmets and result in a reduction in federal authority, I'd be more than willing to forgo my individual right to bare arms for the greater good of the nation (Obviously as someone who claims to hold Anti-federalists views, I believe that a strong central government is generally detrimental.)

    But I realize that this isn't going to happen at this point. It's too far gone and there are too few people who hold views like mine. Even your "extreme" small-government types aren't nearly as extreme about it as I am.

    So I basically admit that I'm being a hypocrite on this particular subject. As I have in the past. My thinking is that if my worldview has no chance, I might as well try to keep my individual rights from being infringed in the process.

    And there's no doubt that being born and raised in Chicago, and still living here, is the main factor in my hypocricy. I know I'd have more problems with the ruling if it didn't give me back my rights directly. So I reconcile that by simply admitting to my hypocricy, and explaining my rasoning for willingly engaging in hypocricy.
    Dam you tucker. I'm a bigger hypocrite than you. You shall be reported.

  8. #208
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Sometimes. But them we have several layers of government -- who, if not the Federal government, keeps the states from infringing on our rights?
    The people of said states through their votes and their actions.


    This is true if you accept the idea that the states have the authority to infringe on peopel's rights.
    I accept the idea that the people of a State have the authority and ability to grant that power to their State governments by way of their votes if they so choose. They also have the power to remove that power from their State govenrments by the same means.

    The Federal governemtn merely guarantees them a republican form of government, which guarantees that they will always have this authority over their state Government so long as it remains in the Union.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #209
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The Bill of Rights came into existence to appease the anti-federalists, who feared that the constitution created a Federal government that was too strong and had too much authority. The BoR wasn't meant to increase federal authority over the states by denying the States powers. It was designed to decrease Federal authority over the states and the people by denying the federal government certain powers.
    Yes. But as you know, the creation of thw 14th was in direct response to states abusing, infringing and ignoring the rights of (some of) their people. How do you suppose this be reconciled, if not for the expansion of the protections of the bill or rights?

    That is, if the state abuses your rights, who else do you turn to if not the federal government?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 06-29-10 at 05:32 PM.

  10. #210
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The people of said states through their votes and their actions.
    As you know, part of the problem was the denial of the right to vote, both outright and by proxy.

    I accept the idea that the people of a State have the authority and ability to grant that power to their State governments by way of their votes if they so choose. They also have the power to remove that power from their State govenrments by the same means.
    Again, as you know, part of the problem was the denial of the right to vote, both outright and by proxy.

Page 21 of 64 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •