2nd Amendment Victory

[tourists24]

Scary that we were only 1 vote away from doing away with the second amendment, but a victory none the less....

Opponents say that America is now less safe.... hmmmm..... I feel much safer if someone breaks into my home to do my family harm. Now I dont have to call the cops until AFTER the bad guy is shot.

 

[tieguy]

What bothers me is the idea that the supreme court actually had to take a vote on the concept of our being able to defend our homes and families.

I've never been a big gun advocate but firmly believe the right to own a gun and to protect whats yours should be one that is undeniable.

 

[wkmac]

Scary that we were only 1 vote away from doing away with the second amendment, but a victory none the less....

Opponents say that America is now less safe.... hmmmm..... I feel much safer if someone breaks into my home to do my family harm. Now I dont have to call the cops until AFTER the bad guy is shot.

I have mixed emotions about the case. It's fantastic on the surface for the 2nd amendment, I say surface because I've come to expect the devil in the details. LOL! But from a State's Rights standpoint, I'm a bit iffy. DC is a federal enclave and it's interesting the case Marbury verses Madison which is the caselaw for SCOTUS to be the final say in all things law was also an issue concerning the federal enclave of DC. There is great debate among theorist over this issue of State's rights. I believe since the constitution at the time written had no standing army per say, the militia is not what a lot of people think it is in out modern thinking.

The constituiton prescibed method in which war is declared by Congress, which in turn grants the President the power to call forth from the state governor's to send "THEIR MILITIA's". IMO the 2nd amendment was more about State's rights in that Congress of the federal gov't could not infringe upon the soverign position of the State's and therefore the people themselves. As long as the State's were able to meet their obligations of the Constitution when called upon in time of war, it was up to them or rather the people as to how they would govern their local community. If the community standard was pro-gun then so be it but if the community stand was anti-gun, so be it then. How do you think some of the "no guns in town" of the old west stood the test of law? State's rights and the right of the people to not be infringed! The 2nd amendment IMO works both ways.

Being Heller was a case concerning the Federal Enclave of DC or more directly, areas under federal jurisdiction and I realized that bolded comment probably just went over everyone's head (mine too until I read the 1957' and 1958' Federal report on Federal jurisdiction) just how reaching is the Heller case ultimately. Some federalist will argue 14th amendment which is a valid point but I'm old school and a Soverign State's right kind a guy and hell no I don't believe in slavery either. One massive shortoming of the organic constitution IMHO. ALL MEN AND WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!!!!!!! So don't raise they tripe with me!

Heller may be a good case/bad case kinda deal like SCOTUS itself. First the Habeus case and then the La, chld rape case and the court was the spawn of hell. Now the Heller case and they sit at the right hand of God!

Jeckyl and Hyde!

If you are interested in having your eyes opened a bit, then the 1957' Pt.1 and 1958' Pt. 2 report comissioned by President Eisenhower on Federal Jurisdiction within the States is most revealing. I got an orignal gov't copy back in the early 80's but some wonderful soul has reproduced it on the net. Very interesting reading although very dry as well.

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fj0-0000.htm

Heller is also a godsend for McCain. He can make a good case with Heller about the need for conservatives to vote for him just on this one point alone as it concerns the future of SCOTUS. You could make a case that had Gore or Kerry been elected, the outcome of Heller might be different.
We no longer have a court guided completely by principle of law but rather the public policy of those who nominate and vote them into the court.

We are no longer a republic (a nation of law and principle) but a real democracy (a nation of whims and desire) which is historically that step over the cliff towards being that infamous footnote in history that someone else's kids will study about as something not to do on a societal scale!

JMO.

 

[Mye Twocents]

I have mixed emotions about the case. It's fantastic on the surface for the 2nd amendment, I say surface because I've come to expect the devil in the details. LOL! But from a State's Rights standpoint, I'm a bit iffy. DC is a federal enclave and it's interesting the case Marbury verses Madison which is the caselaw for SCOTUS to be the final say in all things law was also an issue concerning the federal enclave of DC. There is great debate among theorist over this issue of State's rights. I believe since the constitution at the time written had no standing army per say, the militia is not what a lot of people think it is in out modern thinking.

The constituiton prescibed method in which war is declared by Congress, which in turn grants the President the power to call forth from the state governor's to send "THEIR MILITIA's". IMO the 2nd amendment was more about State's rights in that Congress of the federal gov't could not infringe upon the soverign position of the State's and therefore the people themselves. As long as the State's were able to meet their obligations of the Constitution when called upon in time of war, it was up to them or rather the people as to how they would govern their local community. If the community standard was pro-gun then so be it but if the community stand was anti-gun, so be it then. How do you think some of the "no guns in town" of the old west stood the test of law? State's rights and the right of the people to not be infringed! The 2nd amendment IMO works both ways.

Being Heller was a case concerning the Federal Enclave of DC or more directly, areas under federal jurisdiction and I realized that bolded comment probably just went over everyone's head (mine too until I read the 1957' and 1958' Federal report on Federal jurisdiction) just how reaching is the Heller case ultimately. Some federalist will argue 14th amendment which is a valid point but I'm old school and a Soverign State's right kind a guy and hell no I don't believe in slavery either. One massive shortoming of the organic constitution IMHO. ALL MEN AND WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!!!!!!! So don't raise they tripe with me!

Heller may be a good case/bad case kinda deal like SCOTUS itself. First the Habeus case and then the La, chld rape case and the court was the spawn of hell. Now the Heller case and they sit at the right hand of God!

Jeckyl and Hyde!

If you are interested in having your eyes opened a bit, then the 1957' Pt.1 and 1958' Pt. 2 report comissioned by President Eisenhower on Federal Jurisdiction within the States is most revealing. I got an orignal gov't copy back in the early 80's but some wonderful soul has reproduced it on the net. Very interesting reading although very dry as well.

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fj0-0000.htm

Heller is also a godsend for McCain. He can make a good case with Heller about the need for conservatives to vote for him just on this one point alone as it concerns the future of SCOTUS. You could make a case that had Gore or Kerry been elected, the outcome of Heller might be different.
We no longer have a court guided completely by principle of law but rather the public policy of those who nominate and vote them into the court.

We are no longer a republic (a nation of law and principle) but a real democracy (a nation of whims and desire) which is historically that step over the cliff towards being that infamous footnote in history that someone else's kids will study about as something not to do on a societal scale!

JMO.

I've heard a lot of arguments from pseudo and quasi Constitution experts. It seems that everyone forgets that these amendments were defining individuals rights, so the states militia argument doesn't fly. Furthermore, the right to privacy, abortion, etc. is no where to be found in this document and yet political agenda has driven the court to deem them as "implied". How much more then should a right be set in concrete when it is explicitly defined in the Constitution.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I've heard a lot of arguments from pseudo and quasi Constitution experts. It seems that everyone forgets that these amendments were defining individuals rights, so the states militia argument doesn't fly. Furthermore, the right to privacy, abortion, etc. is no where to be found in this document and yet political agenda has driven the court to deem them as "implied". How much more then should a right be set in concrete when it is explicitly defined in the Constitution.

It all comes down to this.....Liberals shouldn't be allowed to be judges. Especially Supreme Court judges. Or any position of power in government. I can live with having democrats in these type of positions and even as President as long as they aren't too left of center (liberal) because those far left loons would totally rewrite the Constitution if they knew they could get away with it. Just look at California's gay marriage ruling. Perfect example.

 

[wkmac]

It all comes down to this.....Liberals shouldn't be allowed to be judges. Especially Supreme Court judges. Or any position of power in government. I can live with having democrats in these type of positions and even as President as long as they aren't too left of center (liberal) because those far left loons would totally rewrite the Constitution if they knew they could get away with it. Just look at California's gay marriage ruling. Perfect example.

Big,

Very interesting comments.

 

[Jones]

Meanwhile, the President and the Congress are colluding to gut our 4th amendment protections, but there's nary a peep about it from all the conservative protectors of our illustrious constitution because it's being done in the name of...wait for it..."The War On Terror".

Interestingly enough, in this case it's liberals who are on the side of maintaining our constitutionally protected right to privacy while conservatives march in lockstep to destroy it. I'm not sure how that squares with big's political theory. Maybe it doesn't.

 

[browndevil]

It all comes down to this.....Liberals shouldn't be allowed to be judges. Especially Supreme Court judges. Or any position of power in government. I can live with having democrats in these type of positions and even as President as long as they aren't too left of center (liberal) because those far left loons would totally rewrite the Constitution if they knew they could get away with it. Just look at California's gay marriage ruling. Perfect example.

Same sex couples being allowed to marry in California is in regards to EVERYONE has equal protection under the law. FYI 4-3 was ruled by a mainly republican judges

 

[wkmac]

Meanwhile, the President and the Congress are colluding to gut our 4th amendment protections, but there's nary a peep about it from all the conservative protectors of our illustrious constitution because it's being done in the name of...wait for it..."The War On Terror".

Interestingly enough, in this case it's liberals who are on the side of maintaining our constitutionally protected right to privacy while conservatives march in lockstep to destroy it. I'm not sure how that squares with big's political theory. Maybe it doesn't.

Fiscal responsibility also use to be a conservative mantra but has become so lost that some liberals have managed to make this an issue for themselves. Now I'm not convinced it's a true "Damascus Road" conversion over the longhaul but I never thought I'd live to hear even Ted Kennedy himself utter the words "we need fiscal responsibility and constraint" while watching a republican Congress and republican WH spend money to the point that even put ole' Teddy to shame! Maybe Teddy was sacred he was being put out of his job! LMAO!!!!!!

I've since spent the rest my life devoted to finding the wormhole that takes me out of this weird parallel universe and gets me back home where things are normal.

Now I know how Dorothy felt when she realized this wasn't Kansas anymore!


Nice comments there Jonesy!

 

[wkmac]

FYI 4-3 was ruled by a mainly republican judges

Excellent point! I also think when it comes to SCOTUS and some of the recent decisions they've made to not a popular approval here either, that these decisions destroy a couple of popular myths common on both sides of the isle.

Myth 1) It's a democrat who puts a liberal judge on the court.

Myth 2) Republicans always pack the court with radical right wingers.

And now for the next episode of "MythBusters!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

Checkout the bio and who nominated the specific judge.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Meanwhile, the President and the Congress are colluding to gut our 4th amendment protections, but there's nary a peep about it from all the conservative protectors of our illustrious constitution because it's being done in the name of...wait for it..."The War On Terror".

Interestingly enough, in this case it's liberals who are on the side of maintaining our constitutionally protected right to privacy while conservatives march in lockstep to destroy it. I'm not sure how that squares with big's political theory. Maybe it doesn't.

Yeah.....listening to the phone calls of foreign terrorists' phone calls is such an invasion of our privacy. LOL! And let's look at the monitoring of American citizens......the amendment clearly states that we are protected against "UNREASONABLE" searches and seizures. I don't claim to know everything but I'd say that if someone is, or even might be, a terrorist then that is more than enough reason for the CIA, NSA, etc., to be monitoring them.

 

[tieguy]

Same sex couples being allowed to marry in California is in regards to EVERYONE has equal protection under the law. FYI 4-3 was ruled by a mainly republican judges

Our opposition to gay marriages is based on our religious beliefs. The rights of the individual will always take precedence especially if the opposition can prove discrimination.

 

[browndevil]

Our opposition to gay marriages is based on our religious beliefs. The rights of the individual will always take precedence especially if the opposition can prove discrimination.

I can respect your beliefs and see where you are coming from. That is what is great about this Country we can all respectfully disagree. I am, however, grateful we have separation of church and state. Sidebar..I can't tell if you are retired or still working anyways ..Thanks and enjoy!

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Our opposition to gay marriages is based on our religious beliefs. The rights of the individual will always take precedence especially if the opposition can prove discrimination.

What I don't understand is how if the state constitution said that gay marriage was not valid then how can some judges change that? Are these guys going to rewrite every law that they don't agree with? Or do they do it because they are giving in due to the fact that the homosexual agenda is being shoved down everyone else's throats?

 

[moreluck]

There was a very interesting article by Gordon Dillow in the Orange County Register a couple weeks ago. He was discussing the 'gray areas' when it comes to same sex marriages.

Since he makes some good money, he proposed that he marry his neighbor, John. Neither Gordon nor John are gay. However, if they marry, they can file taxes jointly and since John is a fixed-income retiree, Gordon would be greatly relieved from his high tax bill. Also, one could be covered by the other's medical coverage. The law doesn't say that they have to live together, not even for one day.....so, they can stay in their respective houses since John is a slob, Gordon is happy about this.

The whole column was done in jest, but made some good points. Californians will vote in Nov. and maybe this same sex marriage thing will go away.....I hope so.

 

[browndevil]

What I don't understand is how if the state constitution said that gay marriage was not valid then how can some judges change that? Are these guys going to rewrite every law that they don't agree with? Or do they do it because they are giving in due to the fact that the homosexual agenda is being shoved down everyone else's throats?

After 8 years of arguements on both sides of the issue the CA. Supreme Court ruled that equal protection under the law was not given to a group of individuals. Therefore the overtuning of the ban on same sex marriage. Hey I live in the heart of it here and the reaction has been wonderful...and great for our economy

 

[UPS Lifer]

There was a very interesting article by Gordon Dillow in the Orange County Register a couple weeks ago. He was discussing the 'gray areas' when it comes to same sex marriages.

Since he makes some good money, he proposed that he marry his neighbor, John. Neither Gordon nor John are gay. However, if they marry, they can file taxes jointly and since John is a fixed-income retiree, Gordon would be greatly relieved from his high tax bill. Also, one could be covered by the other's medical coverage. The law doesn't say that they have to live together, not even for one day.....so, they can stay in their respective houses since John is a slob, Gordon is happy about this.

The whole column was done in jest, but made some good points. Californians will vote in Nov. and maybe this same sex marriage thing will go away.....I hope so.

If you play the devil's advocate ....
I believe you could make the same argument for the two neighbors if one named Mary and the other one was John!

It will be interesting to see which way California goes on this issue.

More - did this actually make it to the ballot? I have not heard anything on this.

 

[UPS Lifer]

As far as the Gun Control goes - I am not a big gun advocate but I certainly think that the bad guys are going to get the guns no matter what.

What about the good guys? Should they use BB guns to protect themselves???

DC murder rate is about the same as 1976 according to CNN so that tells me with gun control the advantage goes to the criminal.

 

[moreluck]

It DID make the Nov. ballot. They have already written in the paper about the "what if" and will all those marriages be voided out.

 

[tourists24]

There was a very interesting article by Gordon Dillow in the Orange County Register a couple weeks ago. He was discussing the 'gray areas' when it comes to same sex marriages.

Since he makes some good money, he proposed that he marry his neighbor, John. Neither Gordon nor John are gay. However, if they marry, they can file taxes jointly and since John is a fixed-income retiree, Gordon would be greatly relieved from his high tax bill. Also, one could be covered by the other's medical coverage. The law doesn't say that they have to live together, not even for one day.....so, they can stay in their respective houses since John is a slob, Gordon is happy about this.

The whole column was done in jest, but made some good points. Californians will vote in Nov. and maybe this same sex marriage thing will go away.....I hope so.

heck, I say why stop there. Why shouldnt you just be able to marry anyone or as many as you want? Why stop at two people? If we are going to redefine marriage what should it matter if Mary OR John marry as many people as they see fit? It's possible to love more than one person.