Supreme Court rules that 2nd Ammendment protects individual gun-ownership!!

D

Defensor

On paper I suppose, but it actually is quite effective in practice. It isn't perfect, but we are better off with it than without it.
Actually it sucks. Big-time. I can't think of a single thing this arrangement has produced that couldn't be done better without the black-robed tyrants.

I'd rather have a scholar who has been examing the constitution all his life and doesnt need to worry about reelection than leave it up to some two-bit politician who is trying to buy votes.
So you are an advocate of monarchism and despotism now?
 
I

Invayne

Do you think the Jeffersonians would have given up their firearms and genuflected to the black-robed deities of the Court? Hell no; they would have reached for them and commenced another revolution.
LOL!! I think we need to be doing that anyway, for other reasons.
 
G

Grez

The problem we are facing with some of the current Supreme Court judges is that "evolving public opinion" is actually being considered in their decisions. I believe something like this was stated in either the dissent in this case or as part of the reasoning for the non-death penalty for child rapists, can't remember for sure which it was, as they were so close together. This is a sad state of affairs when our Supreme Court Justices start basing their ruling on some public opinions, rather than actually do their job and base rulings on our Constitution, instead of revising their own version of it. How this got only five votes I'm not real sure. I'm all for background checks and checks for mental problem people, but an all out ban I don't know how can really exist. The only way I'd live in DC is if I could have a gun. Owning a gun for the home is the best way to protect your family (as long as its properly stored so that young ones can't get into it).
 
Z

Zarathustra

Actually it sucks. Big-time. I can't think of a single thing this arrangement has produced that couldn't be done better without the black-robed tyrants.
Without the Supreme Court, we would have drifted into a REAL tyranny a long time ago. Probably not long after we were founded, with the Alien And Sedition Acts.

So you are an advocate of monarchism and despotism now?
I don't know how you drew that conclusion. Since the SC has no power to make laws it's hardly a despotism.
 
D

Defensor

Without the Supreme Court, we would have drifted into a REAL tyranny a long time ago. Probably not long after we were founded, with the Alien And Sedition Acts.
We already drifted into a REAL tyranny a long time ago with the aid of the Supreme Court. The credit for defeating the Alien and Sedition Acts goes to Thomas Jefferson, not the Supreme Court.


I don't know how you drew that conclusion. Since the SC has no power to make laws it's hardly a despotism.
You just indicated a preference for unelected leaders who have no responsibility to answer to the people.
 
I

Invayne

The problem we are facing with some of the current Supreme Court judges is that "evolving public opinion" is actually being considered in their decisions. I believe something like this was stated in either the dissent in this case or as part of the reasoning for the non-death penalty for child rapists, can't remember for sure which it was, as they were so close together. This is a sad state of affairs when our Supreme Court Justices start basing their ruling on some public opinions, rather than actually do their job and base rulings on our Constitution, instead of revising their own version of it. How this got only five votes I'm not real sure. I'm all for background checks and checks for mental problem people, but an all out ban I don't know how can really exist. The only way I'd live in DC is if I could have a gun. Owning a gun for the home is the best way to protect your family (as long as its properly stored so that young ones can't get into it).
The Supremes aren't basing their rulings on public opinion. They're basing them on what other countries are doing, and that's worse. They've admitted to it...even a Reagan appointed judge agreed with it. Thankfully, she's retired. I think there are only 2 or 3 judges that actually do the job they're supposed to be doing, which is interpreting OUR Constitution. All of the others are looking at what everyone else in the world is doing...fucking morons.:mad:
 
D

Defensor

And by the way, Zara, you can bet that the moment he gets a chance, your candidate Barack Obama will appoint judges who will overturn this ruling. How exactly do you claim to be a libertarian?
 
G

Grez

The Supremes aren't basing their rulings on public opinion. They're basing them on what other countries are doing, and that's worse. They've admitted to it...even a Reagan appointed judge agreed with it. Thankfully, she's retired. I think there are only 2 or 3 judges that actually do the job they're supposed to be doing, which is interpreting OUR Constitution. All of the others are looking at what everyone else in the world is doing...fucking morons.:mad:
Indeed, I wasn't limiting public opinion to the US people, thats for sure, and your right, it is a lot worse when they begin considering other countries opinions. I think its pretty evident that Kennedy, even though appointed by Reagan, is being the swing vote in pretty much all cases now. At least he got it right on this one.
 
I

Invayne

Indeed, I wasn't limiting public opinion to the US people, thats for sure, and your right, it is a lot worse when they begin considering other countries opinions. I think its pretty evident that Kennedy, even though appointed by Reagan, is being the swing vote in pretty much all cases now. At least he got it right on this one.
Kennedy was a Reagan appointee? I was thinking of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Either way, I just wish they'd do the job they're supposed to do instead of trying to appease the rest of the world.