• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

megaprogman said:
To be fair, I have never been in a position where my life was threatened by a deadly weapon. I will reserve the right to change this opinion if circumstances change.
Click to expand...
I find the phrase "luck favors the prepared" comes in handy more often the older I get. I have had a knife pulled on me before, took a wound blocking it but outcome was better than it could have been. There have been a few instances that I was unarmed and really wished at that point in time I had my sidearm with me, this is all after taking the proper steps to not be in areas known for those types of things happening. So, I'm always glad to hear that others haven't had that level of bad luck, but it does happen. Again, I won't try to persuade someone to own if they don't see fit, though I do personally think it's a good idea.


I hope I am correct too, but I see the US Government as a very robust entity, not easily changed. Especially the military, given its tradition and culture.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that the only way to shrink the government is in intelligently applied baby steps, it took a bit over 100 years for it to get this way so it can't just be erased, but something's gotta be done sooner or later.
 
megaprogman said:
One of the things that I always find interesting about conservatives in their view of the constitution is that they feel that their views are the only relevent ones. It always seems to be a matter of "this interpretation is obvious to me, so its right" without any real discussion of the merits and relevence of each type of interpretation. Its almost as if they feel their view is the default position and everything else is a blatent and obvious lie. Personally, I think its tunnel vision on the matter.
Click to expand...

This is where you are always dead wrong. It's not our view that we think is the only view, but those of the Founders, and the legislatures that ratified the body and amendments of the Constitution. Nope, not our views, but theirs. It is you that wants to use your own views.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
My opinion is that the only way to shrink the government is in intelligently applied baby steps, it took a bit over 100 years for it to get this way so it can't just be erased, but something's gotta be done sooner or later.
Click to expand...

I was speaking in terms of a despotism, similar to the roman republic becoming the roman empire, not gradual change that has more to do with our society being a mature one than a new one.
 
American said:
This is where you are always dead wrong. It's not our view that we think is the only view, but those of the Founders, and the legislatures that passed the body and amendments of the Constitution. Nope, not our views, but theirs. It is you that wants to use your own views.
Click to expand...

Thank you for illustrating my point.
 
American said:
Nice try, but EPIC FAIL.
Click to expand...

No, I think the wholesale categorical rejection of a different view on the constitution because "you want to use your own views" is a great illustration as they are really the same thing. People have a view, they want to apply it and thats all there is. At least this is how I see it. Obviously, you feel differently.

Personally, I don't care what your particular view is or why it is, its the closed mindedness about it that bothers me.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
No, I think the wholesale categorical rejection of a different view on the constitution because "you want to use your own views" is a great illustration as they are really the same thing. People have a view, they want to apply it and thats all there is.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you want to interpret the Constitution the way you see fit....and not according to those that authored it.
 
megaprogman said:
I was speaking in terms of a despotism, similar to the roman republic becoming the roman empire, not gradual change that has more to do with our society being a mature one than a new one.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, while I don't think we are in danger of becoming an empire or despotic regime at this point in time I also disagree that we are exempt from certain levels of soft tyranny. For instance there are constant populist attacks and many leading the charge are willing to completely ignore the constitution to do whatever they feel is the correct path, and there is an encroaching nanny state movement that is slowly eating away at our rights and liberties but increasing momentum at a frightening pace, these things must be reversed because the outcome is an America we won't recognize, I want those people scared and reminded of their place.............away from legislation.
 
American said:
Nice try, but you want to interpret the Constitution the way you see fit....and not according to those that authored it.
Click to expand...

I will try one more time. The way I see it, your two statements essentially amount to the same thing. You have a view and interpretation, largely informed by the FFs, which is great. I am glad you have an interest in the subject as an interest in these things makes people a better informed citizen. But in the end, its just an interpretation among several.

If you don't understand my point, its fine.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Fair enough, while I don't think we are in danger of becoming an empire or despotic regime at this point in time I also disagree that we are exempt from certain levels of soft tyranny. For instance there are constant populist attacks and many leading the charge are willing to completely ignore the constitution to do whatever they feel is the correct path, and there is an encroaching nanny state movement that is slowly eating away at our rights and liberties but increasing momentum at a frightening pace, these things must be reversed because the outcome is an America we won't recognize, I want those people scared and reminded of their place.............away from legislation.
Click to expand...

The way I see it is that human nature will always attempt (in aggregate) to find a balance between ideal freedom and ideal safety and ultimately is largely reactive to events instead of proactive. If I put words into your mouth, I apologize, but I think what you see as society becoming socialist and unfree is what I see as society finding its own balance as human nature dictates. I think the ultimate end result to this process will largely resemble europe and be a social democracy and not something akin to a communist state. I see a lot of fears of socialism expressed here, and coupled with those fears, I tend to see people using the slippery slope argument, thinking that this thing will never stop. And in a sense, I don't think it will, as people react to changing circumstance and technology, but I think it will end up bouncing around some center point than it would be going full communist.

Again, I am making a lot of assumptions here about what may be your views, I am not attempting to set up a straw man but give an honest summary of what I have read here. If I am inaccurate, I apologize.
 
Last edited:
Justice Breyer in his dissent:

"Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?" Breyer wrote. "What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?"
Click to expand...

Hmm. Lets apply this to the judiicial branch overturning the CA voter-apprived ban on gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
I love how SCOTUS decisions never actually quell debates.
 
texmaster said:
It nearly was. Thats why its so scary to even consider liberals on the bench. They don't care what the law says. They want to enact social justice in their own image.
Click to expand...

For all the criticisms of the liberal members of the court that are justified, this is a bit over the top.

As to the rest of the thread: It's a good decision and it sounds like the bulk of those posting here are pleased with it. Let's not turn this into an excuse to list off all the things we don't like about liberal posters here.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I love how SCOTUS decisions never actually quell debates.
Click to expand...

Thats because legality and morality are different things in most people's views.
 
megaprogman said:
The way I see it is that human nature will always attempt (in aggregate) to find a balance between ideal freedom and ideal safety and ultimately is largely reactive to events instead of proactive. If I put words into your mouth, I apologize, but I think what you see as society becoming socialist and unfree is what I see as society finding its own balance as human nature dictates.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree, socialism is a way of excusing failure and subsidizing it, sorry if that seems harsh but it is the least mature and responsible way of governance, anytime you penalize those who earn and produce to subsidize those that don't......and I include much of the public sector here, then there is no balance. Human nature is to create, to exist, and to seek that which provides comfort and joy, if someone punishes my production then I am less free, when they use my funds to justify laws that are not within their perview or scope of authority it leaves me less options, that makes me less free. This is the human nature argument.
I think the ultimate end result to this process will largely resemble europe and be a social democracy and not something akin to a communist state.
Click to expand...
I don't want a baby Europe and neither would most Americans, hell, Europeans are starting to hate the Eurosocialist model, they usually hated it to begin with but accepted it, austerity is dying as we speak.
I see a lot of fears of socialism expressed here, and coupled with those fears, I tend to see people using the slippery slope argument, thinking that this thing will never stop.
Click to expand...
And with good reason, why should those gaining power stop taking? Unless they are stopped, held accountable, and ultimately prosecuted. Perfect examples, the hijacking of industries by the D.C. crowd, the financial bill which seems more like a pirate raid than a reform bill, that damned health bill, gun control, etc. The more power they get the faster they grab.
And in a sense, I don't think it will, as people react to changing circumstance and technology, but I think it will end up bouncing around some center point than it would be going full communist.
Click to expand...
People are waking up, I think November will decide the path for a couple of decades minimum, but I don't see this country going socialist.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Completely disagree, socialism is a way of excusing failure and subsidizing it, sorry if that seems harsh but it is the least mature and responsible way of governance, anytime you penalize those who earn and produce to subsidize those that don't......and I include much of the public sector here, then there is no balance. Human nature is to create, to exist, and to seek that which provides comfort and joy, if someone punishes my production then I am less free, when they use my funds to justify laws that are not within their perview or scope of authority it leaves me less options, that makes me less free. This is the human nature argument.
Click to expand...

I think you are quite accurately detailing one aspect of human nature. Personally, I think human nature is a duality as people both desire freedom and safety in differing degrees depending on the circumstance.

LaMidRighter said:
I don't want a baby Europe and neither would most Americans, hell, Europeans are starting to hate the Eurosocialist model, they usually hated it to begin with but accepted it, austerity is dying as we speak.
Click to expand...

I am sure you don't. Also, while some countries in Europe are going with austerity measures (and some are not), I see no evidence that the people who live there hate the model.

LaMidRighter said:
And with good reason, why should those gaining power stop taking? Unless they are stopped, held accountable, and ultimately prosecuted. Perfect examples, the hijacking of industries by the D.C. crowd, the financial bill which seems more like a pirate raid than a reform bill, that damned health bill, gun control, etc. The more power they get the faster they grab.
Click to expand...

This is why I support automatic sunsets for all laws. Right now our government is set up in a way that creating things is easy, but shutting them down is hard. To me, this is a failure of government more than it is a failure of anything else.

LaMidRighter said:
People are waking up, I think November will decide the path for a couple of decades minimum, but I don't see this country going socialist.
Click to expand...

As soon as people get jobs and some comfort, they will "go back to sleep" as again, as is human nature.
 
Goobieman said:
Of course, not EVERY liberal is anti-gun - but in general, they are, and as a whole, the anti-gun side is populated by liberals.
Click to expand...

Yes, liberals are generally more in favor of restriction on owning firearms, but it's the "rabid" part that is a fabrication. Saying "Yeah, registering guns is a good idea we should make people register their guns" is not the same as LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS BECAUSE THEY HATE FREEDOM.
 
megaprogman said:
I think you are quite accurately detailing one aspect of human nature. Personally, I think human nature is a duality as people both desire freedom and safety in differing degrees depending on the circumstance.
Click to expand...
Not to get too far into that as I believe you are proven right here just by the emotional rhetorical devices used to get inane laws passed for "safety". Ben Franklin had possibly the best quote in that department.



I am sure you don't. Also, while some countries in Europe are going with austerity measures (and some are not), I see no evidence that the people who live there hate the model.
Click to expand...
Depends on which side of it they are on I guess, the productive I've spoken with hate it, of course public sector are going to love it, but the governments themselves are starting to make cuts, and those getting the perks are starting to do the typical complaining, and in Greece's case, rioting.



This is why I support automatic sunsets for all laws. Right now our government is set up in a way that creating things is easy, but shutting them down is hard. To me, this is a failure of government more than it is a failure of anything else.
Click to expand...
I agree here to an extent, except for those things that are proven to work, such as the BOR, and the more appropriate amendments of the constitution such as the 14th, 19th.....etc. Budgets should always have a sunset, taxes, policies. No argument here.


As soon as people get jobs and some comfort, they will "go back to sleep" as again, as is human nature.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I think you are correct here, which is a harsh reality of our society, things have gotten so easy that people no longer think of what can or may happen, only what is and who is "responsible" for it.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, liberals are generally more in favor of restriction on owning firearms, but it's the "rabid" part that is a fabrication.
Click to expand...
Only for some. For others, it is quite accurate.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not to get too far into that as I believe you are proven right here just by the emotional rhetorical devices used to get inane laws passed for "safety". Ben Franklin had possibly the best quote in that department.
Click to expand...

Yes. Inane emotionality is a part of human nature and any political system that fails to account for it is flawed, in my opinion.

LaMidRighter said:
Depends on which side of it they are on I guess, the productive I've spoken with hate it, of course public sector are going to love it, but the governments themselves are starting to make cuts, and those getting the perks are starting to do the typical complaining, and in Greece's case, rioting.
Click to expand...

I think "productive" in the context you are using it is flawed. I don't see society accurately being split between net contributers and net noncontributers. Everyone contributes something, love and comfort to another individual if nothing else. Even people with mental handicap can make life better for someone else.

LaMidRighter said:
I agree here to an extent, except for those things that are proven to work, such as the BOR, and the more appropriate amendments of the constitution such as the 14th, 19th.....etc. Budgets should always have a sunset, taxes, policies. No argument here.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting to the meat of it I think. Stuff that is proven to work in terms of making society better.

LaMidRighter said:
Unfortunately, I think you are correct here, which is a harsh reality of our society, things have gotten so easy that people no longer think of what can or may happen, only what is and who is "responsible" for it.
Click to expand...

I don't really like it either, but I think its true. I think we have to look at the stuff we like and don't like and engineer solutions taking everything into account if we are going to have a great society.
 
I was raised in a Country / Nation where ownership of guns was gradually eroded to the point that it is now almost a criminal offense to own a 'Pea shooter'.

I agree with the enforcement of the 2nd amendment but have to point out that are more ways around such an amendment than have yet been realized.

For instance, it should be possible for anyone be they local, state, or federal to simply limit the amount of ammunition held by someone, or even to limit the size of ammunition, believe me, the NRA may well have won this battle, but the 'Loony left' i believe I read some call it, have not surrendered.
 
jujuman13 said:
I agree with the enforcement of the 2nd amendment but have to point out that are more ways around such an amendment than have yet been realized.

For instance, it should be possible for anyone be they local, state, or federal to simply limit the amount of ammunition held by someone, or even to limit the size of ammunition...
Click to expand...
It would be very difficult to see how these things could pass a strict scrutiny test.
Not to say that the anti-gun left won't try.
 
Tucker Case said:
There were something like 29 shootings in Chicago over the weekend, yet Daley continues to tell us that the ban is working. :roll:
Click to expand...

More evidence that gun-free zones are public hazards.
 
supreme court incorporates the 2nd against the states with the 14th amendment
Click to expand...


Woo-HOO!!!

:2dance: :2party: :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom