oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 09:45 am
Advocate wrote:
It is unbelievable that so many people find McCain acceptable.


McCain is the only one of the three who wouldn't go try to ban a bunch of guns.

That makes him acceptable to me.

Plus, I trust him to bomb Iran if Bush doesn't (I trust Hillary to bomb Iran too though).
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 09:52 am
oralloy wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It is unbelievable that so many people find McCain acceptable.


McCain is the only one of the three who wouldn't go try to ban a bunch of guns.

That makes him acceptable to me.

Plus, I trust him to bomb Iran if Bush doesn't (I trust Hillary to bomb Iran too though).



None of them would succeed in banning many guns.

McCain would be quite likely to bomb Iran. However, it looks as though Israel will beat him to it.

Obama wishes to negotiate with Iran and N. Korea, and should be given a chance. War should be a last resort.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 09:59 am
Advocate wrote:
None of them would succeed in banning many guns.


The only ones who can stop them in the short term are the Republicans (if we vote enough Republicans into office to stop them at least).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 09:59 am
I find this hilarious. Finn talks about good, but dishonest political slogans. Funny he didn't apply it to this:

oralloy wrote:
McCain won't violate our Constitutional gun rights.

Hillary and Obama dream of violating our Constitutional gun rights.


The President is in no position to take guns away from people. The President can only enforce existing laws. The Congress, however, is a different matter. In the 1939 case United States versus Miller, the Supremes upheld a Federal gun law, which did not ban guns, but regulated them. Twice the Supremes have held that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states.

So this is nothing but political sloganeering, and it is every bit as dishonest as Finn alleges Advocates remark to have been.

The constitution give citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It does not confer the right to own any goddamned gun i want, nor does it prohibit the regulation of firearms by the Federal government or the states. Presidents don't write Federal law, Congress does.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 10:07 am
Set, regarding 2A affecting only the federal government, you previously provided portions of cases that didn't specifically say this. Would you give us a quoted sentence or two that specifically say that states are unaffected.

Perhaps you can do this in a noninsulting manner.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 10:23 am
Well, i would hate to disappoint your stereotyped expectations, so let me start out by saying that you have displayed your typical jackass lack of diplomacy.

I have quoted the text of United States versus Cruikshank and Presser versus Illinois so many times, i can only assume that you don't read other people's posts unless they're responding to you. Moron.

United States versus Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875), the Court holds (as a lesser matter among other issues) that the second amendment: " . . . has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Presser versus Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886): "But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."

Maybe you can digest that without being insulting.

Clown.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 10:34 am
In case you don't understand, Advocate (it's a mystery to me what reasonable adult would want you for an advocate, though), if you had simply asked for the citations of these two cases, i'd have been happy to supply them. But that was not sufficient for you, you had to make your snotty remark about "a non-insulting manner." What was the insult in the last set of exchanges between us--that i pointed out that you don't know a goddamn things about military deployments? Is no one ever to tell you that you are wrong, or that you are ignorant?

That's precisely why i went out of my way to call you names in my last post, because of your sanctimonious attitude.


Great braying jackass.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 11:05 am
Setanta wrote:
I find this hilarious. Finn talks about good, but dishonest political slogans. Funny he didn't apply it to this:

oralloy wrote:
McCain won't violate our Constitutional gun rights.

Hillary and Obama dream of violating our Constitutional gun rights.


The President is in no position to take guns away from people. The President can only enforce existing laws. The Congress, however, is a different matter.


The President can use his (or her) bully pulpit to urge Congress to take up a gun ban measure. And the President can sign or veto the legislation that Congress passes.



Setanta wrote:
In the 1939 case United States versus Miller, the Supremes upheld a Federal gun law, which did not ban guns, but regulated them.


The regulations were so restrictive that for most people they amounted to a ban on those guns that were covered by the law.

Technically the Supreme Court didn't uphold the law (nor did they strike it down). They said the lower court used the wrong standard to determine whether or not the law was constitutional, and they sent it back down to the lower court to make the determination again, based on the correct standard.

Miller had already been released and had skipped town, never to be heard from again, so further proceedings were cancelled, and the lower court never made any determination based on the new standard.



Setanta wrote:
Twice the Supremes have held that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states.


I was thinking of federal law with my fears of Hillary and Obama.

But assuming the Supreme Court comes down with a favorable ruling on the Second amendment this spring/summer, the next step will be to sue Chicago, to attempt to secure Fourteenth Amendment incorporation for the Second Amendment.



Setanta wrote:
So this is nothing but political sloganeering,


Is that a bad thing? Hillary and Obama have a horrid voting record on guns, and they are running for president. This is the time and the place for political sloganeering, so everyone knows that they want to ban a bunch of guns.



Setanta wrote:
and it is every bit as dishonest as Finn alleges Advocates remark to have been.


I have no idea how dishonest Advocate's remark was, but pointing out that Hillary and Obama want to ban a bunch of guns is completely factual.



Setanta wrote:
The constitution give citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It does not confer the right to own any goddamned gun i want,


True, but it also doesn't allow the government to ban any gun that they want to ban.



Setanta wrote:
nor does it prohibit the regulation of firearms by the Federal government or the states.


It might prohibit the federal government, depending on the details of the regulation in question (although there are plenty of regulations that wouldn't be prohibited by it).
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 11:32 am
Set, it was clearly too much to ask of you to eschew casting insults.

BTW, it is interesting that you bone up on the subject on which someone comments to find something incorrect, even when the error is minor and tangential. You then roundly insult the intelligence, etc., of the poster. You are a true POS.

Regarding the 2A issue, DC is treated as a state relative to federal law (e.g., the Internal Revenue Code). Thus, why is it that the pending Supreme Ct. case on the DC gun law is based on whether the law meets the 2A strictures?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 02:05 pm
Advocate wrote:
Set, it was clearly too much to ask of you to eschew casting insults.


Here, jackass, i'll go over is slowly for you once again, as it didn't seem to sink in the first time. You asked a question. Had you had the decency to have left it as it was, you would have gotten an answer, and that would have been the end of it. But you couldn't resist a sanctimonious remark about insult, so i was more than happy to help you out with your self-fulfilling prophecy

Quote:
BTW, it is interesting that you bone up on the subject on which someone comments to find something incorrect, even when the error is minor and tangential. You then roundly insult the intelligence, etc., of the poster.


I made a comment on someone else's comment, which had nothing to do with you. You were free to ignore it, or not, as you chose. You chose, however, not only to take notice of it, but to throw in a fine example of your sanctimonious attitude--you picked a fight, and now you're whining because you got punched in the nose for your trouble. As for insulting intelligence, if you don't say stupid things, i'd have no reason to point out that you've said stupid things.

Quote:
You are a true POS.


The only expertise i can assume you employ here must derive from a penchant you have for eating ****. However, in this case you are mistaken.

Quote:
Regarding the 2A issue, DC is treated as a state relative to federal law (e.g., the Internal Revenue Code). Thus, why is it that the pending Supreme Ct. case on the DC gun law is based on whether the law meets the 2A strictures?


In the first place, the District of Columbia is not treated as a state, is not a state, is not a part of any state. It appears to me that the Supremes took this case precisely because it gives them a chickenshit escape clause from actually making a substantive ruling one of the modern political issues most fraught with irrational partisanship.

However, i never mentioned the case in the District, and your inference is as dull-witted and unwarranted as is most of what you post here. Your analysis of the basis upon which the Court will determine the significance of this challenge to a municipal law, in advance of any ruling by the Court, is equally clueless.

If you find what i post so offensive, don't talk to me.

Moron.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 02:13 pm
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The constitution give citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It does not confer the right to own any goddamned gun i want,


True, but it also doesn't allow the government to ban any gun that they want to ban.


This is about the only part of your response which merits comment. As usual, you speak in an ex cathedra manner suggesting an authority which i have no reason to assume you possess. Your comment that the constitution doesn't allow the government to ban any gun they want to ban is a statement without foundation.

The constitution gives the Congress the power to arm the militia. In Miller, the Supremes inferentially referred to that power. Not only did the Court state that there was no conflict between the National Firearms Act and the second amendment, they wrote:

. . . in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

It is clear from the language above the principle of the appeal to the second amendment in this case was not left in any kind of legal limbo as you seem intent on suggesting. It is common in my experience that you translate your preferences and prejudices into statements from authority, as though because you think something should be so, it is sufficient for you to say that something is so.

It will probably not surprise you to hear that i don't agree. Furthermore, you have provided no reason to agree.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 02:15 pm
Hey Setanta, are you running for arrogant aszhole of the month or something?

You have my vote.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 02:16 pm
Here ya go kid . . . here's a quarter . . . go call somebody who gives a **** what you think.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 02:17 pm
Setanta = He who holds the pickle.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 03:05 pm
Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The constitution give citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It does not confer the right to own any goddamned gun i want,


True, but it also doesn't allow the government to ban any gun that they want to ban.


This is about the only part of your response which merits comment. As usual, you speak in an ex cathedra manner suggesting an authority which i have no reason to assume you possess. Your comment that the constitution doesn't allow the government to ban any gun they want to ban is a statement without foundation.


Well, assuming that you consider arms as meaning guns (which I think is a reasonable assumption in light of the legal history of the Second Amendment), I see a contradiction between "the right to have arms" and a "government power to ban any gun they want".

The "right to have arms" has to protect something, otherwise it isn't really a right to have arms.

So without even going into the issue of what sort of guns are protected, it stands to reason that there are some sort of guns which receive that protection, and which therefore can't be banned.



Setanta wrote:
The constitution gives the Congress the power to arm the militia. In Miller, the Supremes inferentially referred to that power. Not only did the Court state that there was no conflict between the National Firearms Act and the second amendment,


I'm pretty familiar with that ruling, and pretty sure they didn't say such a thing. All they did was give the proper standard for deciding whether the NFA violated the Second Amendment, and then sent it back to the lower court to decide whether there was a conflict.



Setanta wrote:
they wrote:

. . . in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.


Yes. That is the standard they presented for determining whether or not a gun is protected by the Second Amendment.

According to their ruling, if possession or use of a given type of weapon benefits the militia, then people have the right to have that type of weapon under the Second Amendment.



Setanta wrote:
It is clear from the language above the principle of the appeal to the second amendment in this case was not left in any kind of legal limbo as you seem intent on suggesting.


I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I suggested any legal limbo.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 03:14 pm
oralloy wrote:
Technically the Supreme Court didn't uphold the law (nor did they strike it down).


I don't think it is unreasonable to say that that sentence implies that the issue was left in some kind of legal limbo.

I have not said that the government can ban all firearms. However, inferentially from the rulings in Cruikshank and Presser, a state could ban firearms, and the second amendment would not apply. What i am saying is that the government has the right to determine what firearms can be kept and borne by the people. If the Congress were ever to grow some testicles, and ban all hand guns, there is nothing in the text of the second amendment, nor the interpretations of it by the Supremes, which would prevent the government from doing so. As long as the government were to to allow some type of firearm, they would not have infringed in the terms of the amendment. It is also important to keep the Dick Act (1905?) in mind in reading the rulings after the establishment of the National Guard. The Dick Act, in providing for a national standard organization of the National Guard, recognizes the existence of an "unorganized" militia. This would be those members of the public who are not members of the armed forces, who would be free to exercise second amendment rights. There is nothing in the text of the constitution or in the rulings of the Supremes to suggest that the Federal government is in any way inhibited from regulating what arms they keep and bear, as long as some type of arm is allowed. If the government were to restrict firearms ownership to single-shot, bolt-action rifles, there is nothing in the constitution or in case law to this date to prevent that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 03:22 pm
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
[The constitution gives the Congress the power to arm the militia. In Miller, the Supremes inferentially referred to that power. Not only did the Court state that there was no conflict between the National Firearms Act and the second amendment,


I'm pretty familiar with that ruling, and pretty sure they didn't say such a thing. All they did was give the proper standard for deciding whether the NFA violated the Second Amendment, and then sent it back to the lower court to decide whether there was a conflict.


Oh? Just how familiar are you?

From Find Law's page on this ruling:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The only problem i see with the statement i made is that i wrote that the Supremes inferentially referred to those powers of Congress, when, in fact, they explicitly refer to them.

(I was unable to get a link to that page to work. My search criterion was simple enough, however: "United States v. Miller")
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 12:11 am
Advocate wrote:
It is unbelievable that so many people find McCain acceptable. I would think that a person who was a key member in the Keating Five would be disqualified. After all, they cost the taxpayer half a trillion dollars.


I read about that, and for the life of me I can't bring myself to care. I get the impression he was a minor accessory, but either way. Neither of us is the superstitious type - if someone robbed a liquor store I'd see it as less of a disqualification (if at all) than if they were a part of this auto-warranty-telemarketing thing that's getting big. I mean, I'm not asking for an angel, whereas squalor, like how the Clintons tried to liberate white house furniture, or Barack thinks he can placate people with their jobs - there's no place for that at the helm of this nation.

Advocate wrote:
Hanno, remember that the government often steps in when private enterprise won't, or can't, get the job done. Postal service is a an example, as well as mass transportation and space exploration. When one of three people have no or inadequate health insurance, we should be going universal like the rest of the world.


I'll remember no such thing. The postal service sucks - they ought-to let FedEx and the paper boy put stuff in mailboxes too. Mass transit - in the sense of barriers to entry, like to build subway tunnels - I could see letting the G jiggle stuff around, but once the walls are down, or if it's just buses, let Greyhound work it out. It's just a special needs case like dairy farming. Space exploration, I'd group in with defense, research in the sense of subsidies, and/or a chamber-of-commerce kindof thing. Health coverage - it's not like there's barriers to entry - do a little consumer-protection if the companies are being high-handed, make it a tax credit, if the locality chips in for hospitals let their feelings on charity be reflected, but there will never be enough to go around. When the chips are down anybody will pay anything they can for any amount of it, and the supply of professionals is finite relative to the population (although it could be stretched if, as I've always called for, they let veterinarians perform low risk care on humans). The question is whether we want cash to be meaningless in terms of what people really want, because so horrific is the idea of doing without that we'd rather have it come down from the fed than have ourselves to thank, and despite the fact we're already reaping the rewards of other nations currencies running that way in terms of doctors immigrating in and wealthy foreigners coming to us. I know it's a scary thought, that what's in your wallet that you'd like to spend to have fun like it's chuck-e-cheese tokens could be what you need to survive, or fall short of being that, but once you get down with it, once you're running your life on your own terms...

I could swear you're mixing up cause and effect. I don't blame you, maybe you see the fluted columns and say 'wow this must be where everything comes from' or 'I want fruit, might as well sniff around the biggest tree first'. It's like stoichiometry, the heat of a reaction/set thereof is what it is, don't matter how you get there, but in terms of potential liberate-able utility. I mean, look at the nation in functional terms, all it's gotta do, all it really can do on the constructive side, is stay in business, as it were keep the Persians under control, keep people out of each others way - do that and the sun would still rise over the land of the free. Anybody needs more than that, they got problems anyway, it's like having a 10-disc changer in a Vette, it's a shitty way to listen to music and a hell of an engine to drag power off of.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 05:51 am
Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
[The constitution gives the Congress the power to arm the militia. In Miller, the Supremes inferentially referred to that power. Not only did the Court state that there was no conflict between the National Firearms Act and the second amendment,


I'm pretty familiar with that ruling, and pretty sure they didn't say such a thing. All they did was give the proper standard for deciding whether the NFA violated the Second Amendment, and then sent it back to the lower court to decide whether there was a conflict.


Oh? Just how familiar are you?

From Find Law's page on this ruling:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The only problem i see with the statement i made is that i wrote that the Supremes inferentially referred to those powers of Congress, when, in fact, they explicitly refer to them.

(I was unable to get a link to that page to work. My search criterion was simple enough, however: "United States v. Miller")


http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html

The error I was talking about was the statement that the Supreme Court said there was no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court said what standard should be used by the lower courts to determine whether there was a conflict, but they did not make any determination themselves.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 05:59 am
Setanta wrote:
There is nothing in the text of the constitution or in the rulings of the Supremes to suggest that the Federal government is in any way inhibited from regulating what arms they keep and bear, as long as some type of arm is allowed. If the government were to restrict firearms ownership to single-shot, bolt-action rifles, there is nothing in the constitution or in case law to this date to prevent that.


Gotta disagree there. The core of the Second Amendment is related to upholding the viability of the militia. Single-shot rifles would not be much benefit to the militia. They might serve as snipers rifles, but would be totally inadequate as a basic infantry weapon.

Also, the right to carry an adequate self-defense weapon might not be in the Second Amendment, but it is somewhere in the Constitution (the Ninth Amendment would cover it if nothing else did). A single-shot rifle wouldn't be an adequate weapon to carry around for self-defense because its rate of fire would be too low.
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
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain!
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 08:21:44