Supreme Court to Decide Second Amendment Incorporation

@Advocate,

MY sense of the situation was that he threw it in
to please Justice Kennedy, who desired to quiet any panic
among the politically correct. Of course, he is the swing vote.

One of the issues of the 20th Century that deeply grossed out
the polically correct was discrimination. Thay were much offended
about victims of discrimination having to sit in the backs of busses
for a few minutes; to them, it was a big deal.
The issue of gun control is one of DISCRIMINATION, but not
as to poor seating for a few moments, rather it concerns being slaughtered,
by the violent depredations of man or beast in conspiracy with government,
which seeks to render the victim of discrimination helpless from the predation, because of gun control.
This protects the predator on-the-job from his victims' defenses.

There is major inconsistency in politically correct dogma.

Given a choice, which woud a victim of discrimination think is worse:

1. being slaughtered by a criminal or a mountain lion, or pit bull etc.
because of his choice to obay government 's rejection of a license to defend his life

or

2. relatively poor seating on a bus for 5 minutes ?

The USSC has already told us that choice #2 is unconstitutional & intolerable.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I think it is very speculative that Scalia made the comments to get Kennedy on board. We don't know exactly how Scalia thinks. I don't see discrimination. People are allowed to have a holstered handgun, and can also carry a rifle. In most places, a person can have a concealed weapon upon showing the need for his. This right is very easy to get in some places. I know that you believe everyone, including children and ex-cons, should have the right to bear. (I guess you hope that one of the latter would get to O.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

If my tone sounds angry,
that is only against the injustice of this discrimination,
not against u, Advocate.

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

I think it is very speculative that Scalia made the comments to get Kennedy on board.

This is true; I was not there spying on them.

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

We don't know exactly how Scalia thinks.
I don't see discrimination.

As it has existed,
gun control [unconstitutionally] renders it illegal for some people to have the means
of preventing themselves from being torn apart.
That is discrimination: saying "Its OK for u; its no good for u." Its not fair.

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

People are allowed to have a holstered handgun,
and can also carry a rifle.

not in Chicago.

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

In most places, a person can have a concealed weapon upon showing the need for his.

Therein lies the discrimination which screws th3em out of their right to live
and to remain intact, unless thay have the wisdom to do what
Americans did about another Prohibition in the 1920s.

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

This right is very easy to get in some places.

AGAIN discrimination. Do u understand the basic concept of discrimination?

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

I know that you believe everyone, including children and ex-cons, should have the right to bear.

That is like saying
that u know that I believe that 5 + 5 shoud be 10.
Thay HAVE that constitutional right, but government is sodomizing them for using it.
The Founders gave permission for government to exist on condition
that some things shall remain beyond the reach of government's jurisdiction;
among these remain the right to keep and bear arms,
as it was for many years after the Bill of Rights was brought into existence in 1791.

Sentencing children to go around unarmed is the same, in principle,
to forcing them to play Russian Roulette because thay are young.
The death penalty shoud not apply to being young.

Children shoud be trained in school in the safe and competent use of defensive firearms,
upon the same principle that thay are taught to swim: their personal safety.

The law shoud be returned to the way it was
from the 1600s thru the early 1900s.

As to ex-cons,
men who have proven to be intolerably dangerous,
by their personal histories of recidivistic criminal violence shoud be prevented
from having access to the decent people.
As it is now, thay are simply released into society
upon the fony presumption that thay have been rehabilitated
while thay were "paying their debt to society."

Quote:

(I guess you hope that one of the latter would get to O.

What does "O" mean ?

David

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

While Scalia's mention of gun control is dicta, it gives a clear indication that he thinks gun control is constitutional.

Your comments are always phrased in a manner that implies that either "all gun control is constitutional" or "all gun control is unconstitutional".

It isn't all or nothing.

Gun control that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Gun control that does not violate the Constitution is not unconstitutional.

Advocate wrote:

I don't think this is a strict scrutiny issue.

It is. Strict scrutiny decides whether the gun control in question violates the Constitution.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

In most places, a person can have a concealed weapon upon showing the need for his.

In most places a person can have a concealed weapon permit without any requirement to "show a need".

Soon enough the Supreme Court will have this policy implemented nationwide.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:
In most places, a person can have a concealed weapon upon showing the need for his.

In most places a person can have a concealed weapon permit without any requirement to "show a need".

Soon enough the Supreme Court will have this policy implemented nationwide.

The problem with the "show a need" doctrine
has been that the issuing authority (usually the police)
rejects the concept that u need a gun for the ordinary potential of running into trouble.
In order to convince them, applicants were required to show EXTRAORDINARY need
to defend their lives; e.g. jewelers or private detectives.
If one of the rest of the American citizenry
is concerned about defending his life, the police have rejected his application
and just told him to take his chances. Thay don 't care. Thay are indifferent to his chances of getting murdered.

That is not what the Founders, the authors of the Bill of Rights, had in mind.

Almost ALL the time, when defensive weapons have been needed,
that need has arisen abruptly and unexpectedly. Defensive guns are emergency equipment.

0 Replies

THE SAINTS and ANGELS DOCTRINE

At SOME point in the future,
the USSC will have to analyse the combined, synergistic effects
of the Second Amendment and the "equal protection of the laws" clause of the 14th Amendment.

Was it the constitutional intendment of the Founders
that the Bill of Rights was only for the benefit of Saints and Angels,
and that less perfect citizens,
who have been ten minutes late in paying their taxes
or otherwise run afoul of the law, like Martha Stewart,
have forefeited their natural right to defend their lives ?

or that because of their youth, American citizens must permit themselves
to be slain in the discretion of mountain lions or drug addicts ?

I don 't think that 's what the Founders had in mind.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Do you realize that you disagree with Dave, who feels any gun control would be unconstitutional? BTW, it goes without saying that gun control may or may not be unconstitutional.

Dave, you should not refer to our founding fathers. There is no evidence that they would go along with your extreme interpretation of the 2A. Moreover, although it is water under the bridge, the right-wing justices issued a results-oriented decision in Heller, and consciously ignored the intent of the founding fathers. The latter felt that they had to make it clear, through the inclusion of 2A, that the new federal government could not ban the states' armed militias.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Gun control that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Gun control that does not violate the Constitution is not unconstitutional

QED

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Do you realize that you disagree with Dave, who feels any gun control would be unconstitutional? BTW, it goes without saying that gun control may or may not be unconstitutional.

Dave, you should not refer to our founding fathers. There is no evidence that they would go along with your extreme interpretation of the 2A. Moreover, although it is water under the bridge, the right-wing justices issued a results-oriented decision in Heller, and consciously ignored the intent of the founding fathers. The latter felt that they had to make it clear, through the inclusion of 2A, that the new federal government could not ban the states' armed militias.

R u serious ?
I think u r trolling me.

David

0 Replies

Pro-gun and "neutral" briefs have all been filed:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings

Chicago has until December 30 to file their brief.

The case will be argued Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Pro-gun and "neutral" briefs have all been filed:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings

Chicago has until December 30 to file their brief.

The case will be argued Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Thank u, Oralloy. We shoud have the decision by July.

Do u think we have a reasonable chance of getting
the USSC decision on HELLER 2, by July of 2011 ?

David

0 Replies

Those who are the most insecure about their manhood or lives in general (Liberals) are the
ones who are most compelled to engage in obsessive anti-gun and anti-freedom behaviors.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

"Those who are the most insecure about their manhood or lives in general (Liberals)"

Really? Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

"Those who are the most insecure about their manhood or lives in general (Liberals)"

Really?

The (anti-selfdefense) liberals for years n decades
have been obsessed about the size of genitalia of pro-gun activists.
Thay just won 't stop writing about it, over n over again. Y do thay care ?

David

0 Replies

http://www.athenswater.com/images/Plumley.jpg

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

stick that gun in your mouth, do something useful

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

As dependable as the swallows returning to Capistrano, oralloy returns to A2K every time the supreme court takes a second amendment case.

For that, he earns our respect and gratitude.

David

+1

Thank you oralloy.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
As dependable as the swallows returning to Capistrano, oralloy returns to A2K every time the supreme court takes a second amendment case.

For that, he earns our respect and gratitude.

David

+1

Thank you oralloy.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could provide that info.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it almost looks like I am being defended from a perceived attack from joefromchicago.

I'm always glad to be defended from attacks, but I don't believe he was actually attacking me, if anyone thinks that.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
As dependable as the swallows returning to Capistrano, oralloy returns to A2K every time the supreme court takes a second amendment case.

For that, he earns our respect and gratitude.

David

+1

Thank you oralloy.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could provide that info.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it almost looks like I am being defended from a perceived attack from joefromchicago.

I'm always glad to be defended from attacks, but I don't believe he was actually attacking me, if anyone thinks that.

I did not interpret what joefromchicago wrote as an attack.

1 Reply

Supreme Court to Decide Second Amendment Incorporation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know