• 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!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

No, I can see where you would have that opinion because in the past I probably have taken those sorts of stances, but now, I can see that both sides of the argument are committing activism when they politically rule. The bottom line is that they need to get back to the Constitution and stop with this.

j-mac

I still disagree j. I'm glad you can at least see it. That's a step ahead of some others. But, the court, like the president and congress, will never be perfect. But it is our system. The response has to be, make a better argument.
 
it was a great example of right-wing judicial activism.
This coming from a person who used examples of the commerce clause from the three worst rated SCOTUS eras of all time? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a FAIL!
 
Where was the gun you bought in Ohio manufactured? Ohio? No? How did it get to Ohio? Interstate commerce? Thought so.

At any rate, whether you agree with it or not, commerce clause analysis is what it is. Likewise, the SC recently held that the 2d Amendment provides for a private right of ownership -- not just for the purpose of state militias. I don't particularly agree with that interpretation, but I do recognize that the Supreme Court establishes the law of the land and it's what we have to live with, unless or until they reverse themselves. Oddly enough, I don't see you complaining about THIS conservative SC decision, which overtuned more than a century of precedent. Hypocrite much?

your statist pyschobabble is idiotic. there was no century of supreme court precedent and Miller can be read rationally as allowing us to own machine rifles. Some appellate courts used an erroneous interpretation of teh 1870s cruikshank decision which held (correctly) that the second does not CREATE a RKBA (It merely RECOGNIZES ONE) and those racist judges (gun control was enacted to keep freed blacks or "papists" disarmed) claimed that since the second did not create a RKBA none existed
 
if you couldn't keep and bear arms until after you joined the militia that had been mustered and appointed officers it would be pretty worthless. the idea of a militia is sort of like a volunteer fire department. can you imagine if a volunteer firefighter would have to go to the firehouse when the alarm sounded, get training in how to fight fires and issued equipment there before going to the fire?

Right, to further the consevative irony and hypocrisy, our Founding Fathers in fact approved a MANDATE that required able-bodied men to purchase their own weapons and sundry equipment. So much for the argument that Obama was the first to do so.
 
your statist pyschobabble is idiotic. there was no century of supreme court precedent and Miller can be read rationally as allowing us to own machine rifles. Some appellate courts used an erroneous interpretation of teh 1870s cruikshank decision which held (correctly) that the second does not CREATE a RKBA (It merely RECOGNIZES ONE) and those racist judges (gun control was enacted to keep freed blacks or "papists" disarmed) claimed that since the second did not create a RKBA none existed

Repeat this for j. Imade the same point earlier, and he didn't see it. ;)
 
Right, to further the consevative irony and hypocrisy, our Founding Fathers in fact approved a MANDATE that required able-bodied men to purchase their own weapons and sundry equipment. So much for the argument that Obama was the first to do so.

I didn't realize that people were members of an insurance pool
 
If we were to revisit the issue, look at intent, reassess the need for that today, I doubt the amendment would hold today. I'm not advocating getting rid of guns, but it is time to end this debate by rewriting it to say what we really do today.


See, this is the problem, what we should be talking about if one disagrees with the amendment, is to either repeal it, or create another amendment superceeding it. Short of that it is activism from a body of unelected judges that have no business setting law.

j-mac
 
Right, to further the consevative irony and hypocrisy, our Founding Fathers in fact approved a MANDATE that required able-bodied men to purchase their own weapons and sundry equipment. So much for the argument that Obama was the first to do so.

I didn't realize that people were members of an insurance pool

gun control guys. gun control. focus now.
 
your statist pyschobabble is idiotic. there was no century of supreme court precedent and Miller can be read rationally as allowing us to own machine rifles. Some appellate courts used an erroneous interpretation of teh 1870s cruikshank decision which held (correctly) that the second does not CREATE a RKBA (It merely RECOGNIZES ONE) and those racist judges (gun control was enacted to keep freed blacks or "papists" disarmed) claimed that since the second did not create a RKBA none existed

Statist psychobable? That's rather self parodying, isn't it? :lol:

Well, it's actually not my assertion; it came from Justice John Paul Stevens.
 
Statist psychobable? That's rather self parodying, isn't it? :lol:

Well, it's actually not my assertion; it came from Justice John Paul Stevens.

stevens-one of the most intellectually deficient justices in years-his dissent in Heller was a prime example of a man whose brain was no longer up to snuff. He whined that the supremes overturned 100 years of crappy appellate precedent that was based on a clearly ERRONEOUS interpretation of a 1870s USSC case that I discussed.
 
See, this is the problem, what we should be talking about if one disagrees with the amendment, is to either repeal it, or create another amendment superceeding it. Short of that it is activism from a body of unelected judges that have no business setting law.

j-mac

It's not a matter of disagreement. The entire context of it no longer exists. Logically, that should be a problem for everyone. I merely would prefer it said what we really mean. Regulations are not going away. This has been long established. And the courts are nto setting law. They are reading the law, and telling us what it says we can and can't do. You must realize by now that two people can read the same body of words and see two completely different things. That's why we need courts.
 
Do you realize what an oxymoron is?

You really aren't demonstrating any intelligence in your posts sufficient to engage in such silly snarkiness towards me.
 
what motivates the anti gunners?

1) they think guns are a hobby of the right and they want to hassle us by attempting to restrict our rights

2) they are afraid of guns and want to exorcise their fears by banning or restricting guns

3) They honestly believe it will reduce crime though they sure don't seem to be too avid about passing laws that actually target criminals
 
You really aren't demonstrating any intelligence in your posts sufficient to engage in such silly snarkiness towards me.
Funny thing is, I have little vested interest in proving anything here so in this "fight" I've basically handcuffed my strong hand to a door to make it fair. The anti-second side isn't even bringing out a 25% effort from ours because this is so dishonest and absurd. Their best arguments are appeal to court(one they agree with and are considered horrible by everyone else) and appeal to emotion(which is just too easy).
 
stevens-one of the most intellectually deficient justices in years-his dissent in Heller was a prime example of a man whose brain was no longer up to snuff. He whined that the supremes overturned 100 years of crappy appellate precedent that was based on a clearly ERRONEOUS interpretation of a 1870s USSC case that I discussed.

Stevens is a great man and was was a very good justice. While Heller didn't explicitly overrule prior cases, it's clear that the SC had several opportunities to find a private right to bear arms and bent over backwards to avoid doing so.
 
Says about 75% of constitutional scholars, you know, guys who study that kind of thing. Face it, you fail......again.


I disagree-its about 99%. Indeed the only ones who disagree are paid hacks in second rate law reviews like Brady Bunch butt boy lawyer Dennis Henigan whose academic credentials are hardly such as to call him a legal scholar
 
I disagree-its about 99%. Indeed the only ones who disagree are paid hacks in second rate law reviews like Brady Bunch butt boy lawyer Dennis Henigan whose academic credentials are hardly such as to call him a legal scholar

So you guys will accept what the major of scholors say on any issue, not just your one or my one, but the majority. Is that correct?
 
Stevens is a great man and was was a very good justice. While Heller didn't explicitly overrule prior cases, it's clear that the SC had several opportunities to find a private right to bear arms and bent over backwards to avoid doing so.

there is a private right-that was explicity found
 
I disagree-its about 99%. Indeed the only ones who disagree are paid hacks in second rate law reviews like Brady Bunch butt boy lawyer Dennis Henigan whose academic credentials are hardly such as to call him a legal scholar

Right, it's only the academic all stars who engage in idiotitc pursuits like ranking Supreme Courts as if they were American Idol judges. :2rofll:
 
Back
Top Bottom