|
Thank goodness our 2nd amendment rights have been upheld. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Despite being only a former resident of DC, given the amount of time I've lived there I think I'm still entitled to say: YOU out of state, federalist douches who think you know what's best for US DCers can go yourselves. Not only do you plop the federal government on us (without paying property taxes) but you deny us representation in congress.
If you feel the need for a weapon for self defense to defend your home (NOT what the founders intended with the second amendment fyi), use a shotgun or a rifle which are legal in DC. Otherwise, respect the democratic process whereby DC can elect politicians to repeal the ban if that's what they wanted. YOU worry about your neck of the woods, we're doing just fine without your elitist opinions about what YOU think makes US safer despite what WE think. K thnx bye. |
OK, whatever dude. I'm happy when anyone doesn't have one of their fundamental rights (right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary) upheld and not surrendered to the government. I don't give a if you live in D.C. or B.C., it's a philosophical victory for the populace. End of story. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
OK, whatever dude. I'm happy when anyone doesn't have one of their fundamental rights (right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary) upheld and not surrendered to the government. I don't give a if you live in D.C. or B.C., it's a philosophical victory for the populace. End of story. |
You obviously don't:
A. Understand the law in question.
B. Understand the process whereby that law came into effect.
C. Understand the sentiments of the location in question.
D. Understand the collective right embodied by the second amendment.
It's a "philosophical victory" for red necks that espouse the same jilted view of the second amendment as you do, and don't seem to understand that this supreme court decision damages the ability of states to decide on their own how to best protect their citizens. End of story. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Despite being only a former resident of DC, |
As a current resident of DC, it really is quite tiring being told what to do by politicians in Montana and Wyoming without having much say in our own governance. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
As a current resident of DC, it really is quite tiring being told what to do by politicians in Montana and Wyoming without having much say in our own governance. |
on a similar note, it's really frustrating that people in virginia, mississippi, and georgia think places like NY, NJ, and Ca should not restrict gun ownership. Even more unfortunate is they actually fight the battles in states they don't live in to try and expand gun ownership. the real shame is that the NRA is going to pick the one citizen in NYC (or any major city) against gun restrictions and challenge NYC laws against gun ownership and try and expand the ruling to prevent states from infringing on gun ownership. An overwhelming majority of people in states with strict gun laws are states where people want those restrictions (that's the democratic process after all - elect people with your views). why the hell do people in mississippi care if ny'ers can own a gun? funny enough, gun owners, who are overwhelmingly champions of states rights, will argue states have no right in this context. The inconsistencies in their arguments (constitutional theories) are mind boggling.
the case, however, left open the possibility that DC can severely restrict gun ownership (and i'm sure they will do everything they can). I was thinking about laws that would fit within the ruling but yet have teeth. If DC were to require gun owners to attend arduous gun safety classes, submit to long and costly background checks, and pay significant fees and taxes, i think the city could make it extremely burdensome for someone to actually own a gun (i don't know the arbitrary and capricious standard all that well, but that doesn't seem arbitrary or capricious to me). And when the person gets a gun, the city can not restrict carrying the weapon in a home, but restrict it elsewhere, and make people disassemble the weapon when outside of the home. those are just my thoughts. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
the real shame is that the NRA is going to pick the one citizen in NYC (or any major city) against gun restrictions and challenge NYC laws against gun ownership and try and expand the ruling to prevent states from infringing on gun ownership. |
That's exactly what happened in DC. And the NRA has already proclaimed they are going to use this ruling to launch dozens of lawsuits challenging gun restrictions all across the country.
| quote: | | the case, however, left open the possibility that DC can severely restrict gun ownership (and i'm sure they will do everything they can). |
But don't you agree that this case also provides a precedent for repealing gun restrictions or bans as too limiting on the second amendment? It didn't draw a line - Scalia just mentions that he doesn't believe guns should be unrestricted to the mentally ill, etc. but he doesn't provide a test for determining which laws are constitutional and which overstep what he perceives to be constitutional limitations - all I see coming from this is a whole lot more lawsuits where the 2/3 of federal district court judges appointed by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II will have a field day striking down restrictions across the country. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You obviously don't:
A. Understand the law in question.
B. Understand the process whereby that law came into effect.
C. Understand the sentiments of the location in question.
D. Understand the collective right embodied by the second amendment. |
Perhaps not. On the surface I understand that the court upheld the second amendment. Had it been overturned, would you be celebrating? I admit to only having read this story at the surface level.
| quote: | | It's a "philosophical victory" for red necks that espouse the same jilted view of the second amendment as you do, and don't seem to understand that this supreme court decision damages the ability of states to decide on their own how to best protect their citizens. End of story. |
I'm all for states rights. However, the right to bear arms is also a federally protected right. I believe the 10th amendment states: | quote: |
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
And as far as your ad homenim goes...no need to even respond. |
|
|
| LazFX |
I am far from redneck.....
and I own guns..
and I will protect my home and family with these guns...
and I smiled and sighed a breath of relief when this decision came down. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
But don't you agree that this case also provides a precedent for repealing gun restrictions or bans as too limiting on the second amendment? It didn't draw a line - Scalia just mentions that he doesn't believe guns should be unrestricted to the mentally ill, etc. but he doesn't provide a test for determining which laws are constitutional and which overstep what he perceives to be constitutional limitations - all I see coming from this is a whole lot more lawsuits where the 2/3 of federal district court judges appointed by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II will have a field day striking down restrictions across the country. |
perhaps, but as i suspected, the court didn't even attempt to deal with the issue of states rights to control guns. remember, the consitution doesn't apply to states on its face. the first ten amendments didn't apply to the states until a court said they did. thus, the court left open the possibility that a state could restrict gun ownership. the troubling language is that scalia specifically ruled that an individual has the right to bear arms. the problem is, the court didn't say who couldn't infringe on that right, except that DC couldn't infringe on that right in one's home. that's pretty vague and it leaves open the possibility that states can infringe on that right. remember, on its face, the ten amendments don't apply to state, only the federal government. i do agree that conservative fed judges will start striking down bans left and right. although, the DC circuit is the most conservative, so who knows. perhaps the 9th circuit won't view it the same (i'm pretty sure that is still the most liberal circuit). i think the 2nd and 3rd are pretty 'non' conservative also (i don't want to say liberal though) - although i'm not too sure about that.
scalia's position on controlling guns apparently is arbitrary and capricious. meaning, the gun control can't be arbitrary and capricious. while he doesn't say that, he did say that the process of licensing couldn't be arbitrary and capricious. i don't see how the standard for gun control can be much different from the standard to license guns. but i'm no con law guy and i could be way off. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
I am far from redneck.....
and I own guns..
and I will protect my home and family with these guns...
and I smiled and sighed a breath of relief when this decision came down. |
why?
there isn't a chance in hell texas would restrict gun ownership. you people need to understand more fully the federalism process. it is extremely tough for the federal government to restrict gun ownership because they don't have a general power to make laws. it must related to something that they do have power to regulate - commerce, financial institutions, international policy, etc... a federal gun restriction prohibiting automatic weapons in school zones was held unconstitutional a few years back because it didn't related to interstate commerce (congress tried passing the restriction under the commerce clause - meaning, the law was related to interstate commerce). THe court determined guns in school zones has nothing to do with interstate commerce. that case essentially tied the federal government's hands as far as gun control. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
I am far from redneck.....
and I own guns..
and I will protect my home and family with these guns...
and I smiled and sighed a breath of relief when this decision came down. |
This case had absolutely nothing to do with you. I don't think the people celebrating really understand the question that was up for debate. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
OK, whatever dude. I'm happy when anyone doesn't have one of their fundamental rights (right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary) upheld and not surrendered to the government. I don't give a if you live in D.C. or B.C., it's a philosophical victory for the populace. End of story. |
What you can't defend yourself with a shotgun? Taser? Bean bag gun? But hey you live in Georgia and I occasionally pass through that state. I come from the north east where the speed limit is 65mph and I feel that the speed limit in your state (70mph) violates my right to self preservation. Why don't you conform to my expectation for a right to protect myself? FYI refer to my argument in the other thread about our "right" to bear arms. Once again, I'm out on vacation for two weeks but I'll catch up when i get back :). |
|
|
| robstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I come from the north east where the speed limit is 65mph and I feel that the speed limit in your state (70mph) violates my right to self preservation. Why don't you conform to my expectation for a right to protect myself? . |
Wow that was REALLY weaksauce. |
|
|
|
|
