0
   

Guns and the Supreme Court

Forums: Politics, Guns, Gun Control, Supreme Court, Scotus
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 11:47 pm
Interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/19/AR2008011902231.html

A brief summary: The Solicitor General has recommended that the Supreme Court recognize an individual gun right using "intermediate scrutiny", which everyone is taking to be a pro-gun-control position.

-------------------------------------

I'm not sure the fuss is warranted. How much real-world difference does strict vs. intermediate scrutiny make?

No question that I'd take strict scrutiny if I could. But I suspect that intermediate scrutiny might not be as bad as people think.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2008 09:41 am
Why pick on guns? The bullet that kills someone is quite remote from the gun.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2008 09:58 am
Advocate wrote:
Why pick on guns? The bullet that kills someone is quite remote from the gun.


Good question. Why are YOU picking on guns?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2008 10:10 am
maporsche wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Why pick on guns? The bullet that kills someone is quite remote from the gun.


Good question. Why are YOU picking on guns?



Can't you come up with a wittier retort?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 06:24 am
Oral arguments for Heller have been tentatively scheduled for March 18.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 09:07 am
maporsche wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Why pick on guns? The bullet that kills someone is quite remote from the gun.


Good question. Why are YOU picking on guns?



I wasn't picking on guns -- I love guns. But I am opposed to people like you and your fellow gang members possessing them.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:10 pm
Advocate wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Why pick on guns? The bullet that kills someone is quite remote from the gun.


Good question. Why are YOU picking on guns?



I wasn't picking on guns -- I love guns. But I am opposed to people like you and your fellow gang members possessing them.


EXCUSE me?

This insult has been reported.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:18 pm
Humorless!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:35 pm
Advocate wrote:
Humorless!


To me, guns are not a laughing matter.

Gang member accusations? Not so much either.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2008 01:55 pm
I think everything is a laughing matter.

It is too bad so many of you gun people can't take a joke. How would I know whether you were in a gang. Puleeeeeez!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2008 03:06 pm
Advocate wrote:
I think everything is a laughing matter.

It is too bad so many of you gun people can't take a joke. How would I know whether you were in a gang. Puleeeeeez!


That's exactly the point, though. Isn't it? A phony accusation in the absence of any knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2008 04:30 pm
roger wrote:
Advocate wrote:
I think everything is a laughing matter.

It is too bad so many of you gun people can't take a joke. How would I know whether you were in a gang. Puleeeeeez!


That's exactly the point, though. Isn't it? A phony accusation in the absence of any knowledge.



Your postscript is a bit irreverent. Shame!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2008 05:46 pm
And your post is totally irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 03:17 pm
Still haven't gotten around to responding to the post, instead of the signature line, eh?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 04:22 pm
roger wrote:
Still haven't gotten around to responding to the post, instead of the signature line, eh?



Delicate thing that you are, I am afraid to respond. Actually, to what am I supposed to respond?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 04:45 pm
roger wrote:
Advocate wrote:
I think everything is a laughing matter.

It is too bad so many of you gun people can't take a joke. How would I know whether you were in a gang. Puleeeeeez!


That's exactly the point, though. Isn't it? A phony accusation in the absence of any knowledge.


Advocate wrote:
I wasn't picking on guns -- I love guns. But I am opposed to people like you and your fellow gang members possessing them.


Certainly, you don't see the point in apologizing to maporsche. It's an everyday occurance to be accused of being a gang member because opinions differ. What is expected of one poster is not what might be expected of others.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 07:48 pm
Have there been oral arguments yet in the case? I would love to hear these -- it would probably be great theater.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 04:16 am
Advocate wrote:
Have there been oral arguments yet in the case? I would love to hear these -- it would probably be great theater.


Oral arguments this Tuesday (March 18).

In addition to the half-hour given to both sides, the Solicitor General will be given 15 minutes (presumably to argue his case for intermediate scrutiny instead of strict scrutiny).

Same-day audio release is planned.



Theater indeed. The anti-freedom movement must be having fits right now trying to figure out how to peddle their BS to a panel of justices who know better.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 07:26 am
Tobacco and alcohol products kill more people than firearms
Advocate wrote:


There should be a limit on the number of guns an individual may buy in a month.
A dealer can now, I believe, buy say 30 handguns at once and then peddle them in the inner city.

Records of gun licensing should be retained.
At present, they must be destroyed after a day.

Right to carry should be restricted to those who have an overriding need for this.


We should impose these same restrictions on dealers and individuals that peddle cigarettes and other tobacco products in the inner city.
The same rule should apply to alcohol peddled in the inner city.

Records should be kept to see who is buying these tobacco and alcohol products.

Right to purchase these tobacco and alcohol products should be restricted to those that have an overriding need for these items.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 08:30 am
Oral says that gun control is anti-freedom. Tosh! That is tantamount to saying that traffic regulation is anti-freedom.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Guns and the Supreme Court
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 06:18:52
▲ ▼