21
   

NRA Releases Anti-Obama Ads

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 03:42 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
It is only a matter of time (and not very much time at that) before the Supreme Court makes the Second Amendment binding to state and local governments.


Leaving aside the idiocy of suggesting that the Court can "make" any part of the constitution applicable where it is patently not applicable, this is a statement which you make, so typically, on no more sound a basis that that you have said it. Wishful thinking is not a substitute for evidence or sound reasoning. But if it makes you happy to think as much, help yourself.

As far as you pathological attitude toward Obama, and your idiotic repetition of the "hates freedom" shibboleth, that is best passed over in silence, just as one quietly steps around the ranting bum on a street corner.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 04:51 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
It is only a matter of time (and not very much time at that) before the Supreme Court makes the Second Amendment binding to state and local governments.


Leaving aside the idiocy of suggesting that the Court can "make" any part of the constitution applicable where it is patently not applicable,


The Fourteenth Amendment says the Second Amendment applies to the states.

It is hardly idiocy to point out the reality that the Supreme Court is about to start enforcing that part of the Constitution.




Setanta wrote:
this is a statement which you make, so typically, on no more sound a basis that that you have said it. Wishful thinking is not a substitute for evidence or sound reasoning. But if it makes you happy to think as much, help yourself.


A bit of a difference between acknowledging reality and wishful thinking.

But I do indeed plan to celebrate each and every blow our legal system lands on the freedom haters. Happiness indeed!




Setanta wrote:
As far as you pathological attitude toward Obama, and your idiotic repetition of the "hates freedom" shibboleth, that is best passed over in silence, just as one quietly steps around the ranting bum on a street corner.


Well, there isn't really any way to contradict Obama's anti-gun record on both the state and federal level. I don't think anyone will hold it against you for not defending the indefensible.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 08:35 am
@oralloy,
The fourteenth amendment only guarantees due process, it is absolutely mute on the subject of the second amendment. Don't make **** up. If a state law were applied to a defendant who subsequently appealed, the fourteenth amendment would only come in if the appellant could make a case that he had been denied due process of law. That a court failed to apply that individual's idiosyncratic notion of how the second amendment applies would not constitute evidence that said individual had been denied due process.

You continue with the "freedom haters" bullshit, i see. This is a shibboleth whereby those who oppose absolutely all restriction on the possession and sale of firearms identify one another. However, there is a distinction to be made between freedom and license. It does not surprise me at all that you either don't understand the distinction, or are willing to be dishonest about it. If you want to discuss a topic, it helps to leave propagandistic bullshit out of the conversation.

I have no brief to defend (nor to attack) Mr. Obama's "record" on gun control. I merely pointed out that the Supreme Court twice has held that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states.

It is neither my fault, nor a subject of any interest to me that you get your panties in a twist over that fact.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 10:06 am
@maporsche,
"parados" wrote:
Sure.. and no one had guns when the assault weapons ban was in place the first time, did they?

maprosche wrote:
Yeah, not what I said at all (you do that a lot, I'm noticing).



Not what you said but it looks like that is what both of you meant.

oralloy wrote:
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between "banning assault weapons" and "banning every gun in existence".

maporsche wrote:
Agreed orallay


0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 11:12 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The fourteenth amendment only guarantees due process, it is absolutely mute on the subject of the second amendment.


Nope. The Fourteenth Amendment does a number of things. One of them is extend the bill of rights to apply to state and local governments.




Setanta wrote:
Don't make **** up.


Don't worry. I won't.




Setanta wrote:
I merely pointed out that the Supreme Court twice has held that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states


They'll not rule that way the next time.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 11:31 am
All we have here is Oralloy's ipse dixit. That's no basis upon which to construe a reasonable argument. As i have pointed out, with links to the case law, the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states. Not only is Oralloy (apparently) unable (or unwilling, more likely) to accept this, but he makes an idiotic argument from the 14th admendment, which was in force when both the Cruikshank and Presser cases were decided.

Then he looks deeply into his fully-armed crystal ball, and tells us how the Court will rule in future.

Somethings stinks here . . . oh, i see, it's this pile of horseshit Oralloy left lying around.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 01:18 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:

All we have here is Oralloy's ipse dixit. That's no basis upon which to construe a reasonable argument. As i have pointed out, with links to the case law, the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states. Not only is Oralloy (apparently) unable (or unwilling, more likely) to accept this, but he makes an idiotic argument from the 14th admendment, which was in force when both the Cruikshank and Presser cases were decided.

Then he looks deeply into his fully-armed crystal ball, and tells us how the Court will rule in future.

Somethings stinks here . . . oh, i see, it's this pile of horseshit Oralloy left lying around.


Somehow, you skipped my earlier post here, setty. Convenient.

And you did read Heller? I'm not sure if you are even really familar with Cruikshank and Presser, actually.

As I pointed out, the Court used Cruikshank and Presser in the Heller decision.

Not wishful thinking; the way the court uses precedence, when another states case comes up, the Court will certainly use Heller in their decision.

I believe the wishful thinking will come in the form of anti-gun libs hoping for more Ginsberg type appointments before this happens...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 02:34 pm
The retriction on manufacture and sale of assault weapons was contained in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that received substantial bipartisan support in the House and Senate and expired in 2004.

It definitely did not leave the matter up to the states and I believe most, if not all federal run regulations would apply to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

The Obama Administration is on record as wanting to reinstate the act plus possibly some other gun control measures.

He is receiving major opposition, however, not only from the NRA but from none other than Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

Quote:
Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009 19:40 EST
Pelosi doesn't want to restore assault weapons ban

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would like to bring back the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. The idea managed to last just one day before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared it dead.

"On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now," Pelosi, borrowing standard pro-gun language, said at her regular news conference on Thursday.

Though it's surprising to hear that from Pelosi, it's not at all shocking to see Congressional Democrats pushing back against new gun control measures. As I wrote in a 2007 article following the shooting at Virginia Tech, since 2000 Democrats have essentially abandoned gun control as an issue. They couldn't even muster the political will to keep the ban from expiring in 2004, despite its overwhelming popularity. (One survey found that 71 percent of people in households without guns supported the law; so did 64 percent of people in households with guns.)
MORE HERE. . . .
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/02/26/assault/index.html


Stay vigilant folks, because when it comes to Presidents and kings, intentions and wishes are important. But I don't think the guns are in any major imminent danger just yet.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 09:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Pelosi is, if nothing else, pragmatic. And certainly a skilled politician who plays well to her base.

Coming from San Francisco, it is not in her interest to support any type of gun rights.

She recalls, however, what happened in 1994 and after. To the Dems. Because of the High Capacity gun ban.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 04:59 am
Certainly Heller mentions Cruikshank and Presser, as well as Miller. Given the paucity of second amendment cases, it would be surprising if it did not. However, having read a case is not in itself sufficient--it is necessary to understand what one reads. In Heller, the Court mentions Cruikshank and Presser in the context of pointing out that none of the earlier precedents contradict the Heller decision. In Heller, however--and this is why it is necessary to understand what one reads--the Court does not contradict the statements in Cruikshank and Presser to the effect that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 09:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
All we have here is Oralloy's ipse dixit. That's no basis upon which to construe a reasonable argument. As i have pointed out, with links to the case law, the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states. Not only is Oralloy (apparently) unable (or unwilling, more likely) to accept this,


I don't recall refusing to accept that....



Setanta wrote:
but he makes an idiotic argument from the 14th admendment, which was in force when both the Cruikshank and Presser cases were decided.


Nothing idiotic about pointing out the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to cover state and local governments.



Setanta wrote:
Then he looks deeply into his fully-armed crystal ball, and tells us how the Court will rule in future.


The near future, actually.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 11:27 am
@Setanta,
Quote:

In Heller, the Court mentions Cruikshank and Presser in the context of pointing out that none of the earlier precedents contradict the Heller decision.


Exactly. And Heller was pivotal, was it not, in that it decided an individual's 2nd Amendment rights?

And when a states case does come before the Court, many legal wonks (without the NRA or Brady mindset shading their views) indicate Heller will likely be the precedence used.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Cruikshank and Presser, although precedence cases, will be difficult for anti-gunners to hang their hats on. States disarming minorities at the request of the KKK does not make good case law over one hundred years later, especially in lieu of Heller, which does strengthen the individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 12:39 pm
@oralloy,
The fourteenth amendment does not directly extend any of the amendments among the first ten (commonly referred to as the bill of rights) to the states. Inferentially, any right of the individual guaranteed within those amendments which is a right of due process becomes guaranteed to individuals in their dealings with the several states. For the fourteenth amendment to cause the states to be bound by the second amendment, it would be necessary for a litigant to demonstrate that the second amendment acts to assure due process of law, and that therefore, the states are bound by the fourteenth amendment to assure that due process. Good luck making that case.

I seriously doubt that the Court will negate the statements in Cruikshank and Presser in the near or the distant future. They had the opportunity in Heller, and yet explicitly pointed out that their ruling in Heller was not contradictory to the precedents in Cruikshank, Presser and Miller. So in fact, what you dream of would actually constitute a reversal of the court's ruling in Heller.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 12:42 pm
@A Lone Voice,
You really don't understand these things when you read them, do you? In both Cruikshank and Presser, the Court observed that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states. That portion of each ruling has nothing to do with disarming minorities, nor any other evocative straw man you care to raise. My remark was limited to an observation of the statement of the Court in both cases regarding the applicability of the second amendment. Your understanding of Heller appears to be rather shallow. Heller basically assures that all individuals have the right of access to firearms. This would only impinge on a state law which sought to prevent entirely the ownership of firearms, or the application of which had that effect. The ruling in Heller does not address issues of jurisdiction.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 12:53 pm
@A Lone Voice,
There are two basic motivations you see in every sort of gun control law in our country:

Racism: the notion that firearms should be kept out of the hands of Negroes, Irish, Chinese etc. etc. for obvious (to the framers at least) reasons. Irish in particular were viewed as beneath blacks in any sort of a social or genetic analysis not long ago.

Public works: the activities which culminated in the laws which banned so-called gangster weapons under FDR were mainly meant to give the feds involved something to do after the end of prohibition stopped all the anti-booze activities.








0 Replies
 
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:05 pm
http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu107/MrDeckland/ATT00028.jpg
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:05 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:

You really don't understand these things when you read them, do you? In both Cruikshank and Presser, the Court observed that the second amendment binds the Federal government, but not the states. That portion of each ruling has nothing to do with disarming minorities, nor any other evocative straw man you care to raise. My remark was limited to an observation of the statement of the Court in both cases regarding the applicability of the second amendment. Your understanding of Heller appears to be rather shallow. Heller basically assures that all individuals have the right of access to firearms. This would only impinge on a state law which sought to prevent entirely the ownership of firearms, or the application of which had that effect. The ruling in Heller does not address issues of jurisdiction.


Perhaps I don't read these cases with a slanted, biased viewpoint, as you do?

Cruikshank and Presser did, in fact, disarm individuals.

Heller, while deciding jurisdiction, is also of note for determining the individual's right to possess a gun. Putting to rest the militia question.

As you've stated - but seem to forget when an argument isn't going your way - the Court will use precedence in future rulings. The right of the individual to bear arms, as decided in Heller, will likely loom large in future decisions where jurisdictions attempt to instill various gun bans.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:12 pm
@Deckland,
Deckland wrote:

http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu107/MrDeckland/ATT00028.jpg


Unfortunately, he has three Dobermans and a hell of a sharp Katana... should warn folks on the sign.

Cycloptichorn
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Nope. His city in California declared Dobermans were 'dangerous animals', and he was also violating the more than one pet allowed policy... Wink
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:19 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Nope. His city in California declared Dobermans were 'dangerous animals', and he was also violating the more than one pet allowed policy... Wink


What 'more than one pet' policy?

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:02:38