| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
B1ackwater
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
 |
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not difference
as far as the law goes.
|
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Topp@Work
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4864063a.38784390@news.east.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net
wrote:
"
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not
difference
as far as the law goes.
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ...
|
It would never come back up in the same route...
Banning something you have a right to own has been deemed unconstitutional,
along with making it inoperable for your defense...
So what will come up is regulation issues....
Such as, waiting periods...Purchase of one a month....etc, etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
LT
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4864063a.38784390@news.east.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net
wrote:
"
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not
difference
as far as the law goes.
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ...
None the less, it's a majority ruling, and it would be a very long hard |
fight to even get it considered again. TSCOUS just can't keep reconsidering
issues that have been clearly defined just because a new justice is seated.
Larry T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Graeme
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jun 26, 8:33 pm, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:46:34 -0400, "Topp@Work"
toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
Funny though, crime in all those states went down....
No such thing
Crime went down in years where law enforcement was
funded properly.
Cops (generally) hate the idea of "more guns".
|
There is not one shred of hard evidence that the police have any
significant effect on crime. Indeed, several large studies (eg, the
Kansas City and Newark studies) found that the crime rate did not
change significantly with amount or type of policing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Graeme
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jun 26, 2:01 pm, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
|
Souter especially has been a real disappointment. He's clearly not
been a friend of individual rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RSweeney
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:3cr764tfgppkaqrovg25rcr9msakrej7rp@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
While I'm happy about the decision,
All gunloons are.
Now we'll see who can kill the most people.
|
Criminals, the same people who had guns BEFORE the ruling.
With history in other states as our guide, the good guys will come out
slightly ahead as criminals think twice about home robberies and rapes where
the victims might be armed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:32 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:47:32 -0400, "Topp@Work"
<topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:har764lpbeegeudn84v4b6o4th999fc98h@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:01:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net
(B1ackwater) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard78sp@primus.ca"
leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
Yep, then we can start practicing stiff-arm salutes,
goose-steps while you march lockstep with neo-nazis.
Bwaaahaaa....You are obviously about 15 years old, or just a moron...
|
That won't come until your leader kills off most of the
military---then has to start recruiting the elderly and
children---just like your last hero, ....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:33 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:46:34 -0400, "Topp@Work"
<topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Funny though, crime in all those states went down....
|
No such thing
Crime went down in years where law enforcement was
funded properly.
Cops (generally) hate the idea of "more guns". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:10:15 -0400, "RSweeney"
<dockscience@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:3cr764tfgppkaqrovg25rcr9msakrej7rp@4ax.com...
While I'm happy about the decision,
All gunloons are.
Now we'll see who can kill the most people.
Criminals, the same people who had guns BEFORE the ruling.
|
But Criminal could be arrested for having them
Now only if convicted of a crime where a gun was used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:47:02 -0400, "Topp@Work"
<topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:der764toucc0pbc6s5gng31qd1u6chlu8q@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT"
craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
But the folks in DC, Chicago and other restricted cities are not out of
the
woods. I would expect DC to impose very strict requirements, and a lot of
red tape to be able to posses a gun.
So you're saying that some rationality still might
exist to counter gunloonery?
What do you find rational about disarming LAW ABIDING people to protect
themselves?
|
Because the stupidity of claiming that "more guns"
cause less crime is astoundingly juvenile
The idea of "individuals" enforcing laws or preventing
crimes, at best, is a puffed up anecdotal evidentiary
propaganda---and mostly the H ollyWood, John Wayne
version of society.
The law in a high crime district was, at least, in part
mitigated by the strict gun laws.
Now everyone can have one.
Now we can experience "shoot first", mentality of
anyone with a "criminal" mentality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:11:44 -0500, "LT"
<craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
SCOTUS has for once and for all affirmed that the 2nd Amendment implies the
right to keep and bare arms is directed at the individual, not a group
(militia) and the states have no authority to deny that right,
|
Holy shit
And for years and years the rightwing has claimed the
USSC cannot decide anything correctly (to their view).
Now that you've got 5 rightwing extremist idiots,
locked in some world of the 18th century, you figure
they're "right on"
It's true THEY interpreted it that way----but any
rational, non "federalist society" Justice would ruled
as the minority did
You won the battle, but lost the war.
Eventuall, Americans cannot survive with murderous
mentality promoted by the Nazi Rifle Association and
it's thugs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Felix D.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4863d914.27226046@news.east.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard78sp@primus.ca"
leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
|
From your lips to God's ears ... may it please be so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Moffitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:5id864p4mlcsqb3lnb1v8asls7l342jph7@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:11:44 -0500, "LT"
| <craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
|
| >
| >SCOTUS has for once and for all affirmed that the 2nd Amendment implies
the
| >right to keep and bare arms is directed at the individual, not a group
| >(militia) and the states have no authority to deny that right,
|
|
| Holy shit
|
| And for years and years the rightwing has claimed the
| USSC cannot decide anything correctly (to their view).
|
| Now that you've got 5 rightwing extremist idiots,
| locked in some world of the 18th century, you figure
| they're "right on"
|
| It's true THEY interpreted it that way----but any
| rational, non "federalist society" Justice would ruled
| as the minority did
|
| You won the battle, but lost the war.
|
| Eventuall, Americans cannot survive with murderous
| mentality promoted by the Nazi
Godwin's Law: prov.
“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many
groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned
the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
Rifle Association and
| it's thugs.
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, leonard78sp@primus.ca wrote:
| Quote: |
the right is not absolute
|
Wonder what this means.
Is any right absolute? What other rights are not absolute?
What is the constitutional basis for 'absolute' and none absolute? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pubkeybreaker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jun 27, 7:40 am, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"John Graeme" <jdgra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5e070887-578e-41cc-8096-d1f1deefcb6f@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 8:33 pm, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:46:34 -0400, "Topp@Work"
toppro...@comcast.net> wrote:
Funny though, crime in all those states went down....
No such thing
Crime went down in years where law enforcement was
funded properly.
Cops (generally) hate the idea of "more guns".
There is not one shred of hard evidence that the police have any
significant effect on crime. Indeed, several large studies (eg, the
Kansas City and Newark studies) found that the crime rate did not
change significantly with amount or type of policing.
In the real old days cops took the real bad guys down an alley and shot them
in the head. THAT did have a beneficial effect on crime
|
Please explain how the police committing a crime reduces crime.
Crime is crime. Or are you suggesting that it is OK to commit crimes
against some people but not others???? Ot that it is OK for some
people
to commit crimes?
To any rational thinking person having the POLICE commit a crime is
worse
than having your average thug commit a crime precisely because they
are
entrusted by the public to UPHOLD the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
106 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
