**DC v. HELLER DECISION ANNOUNCED** - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:13 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Exclamation **DC v. HELLER DECISION ANNOUNCED**

Hot off the bench


From live SCOTUS blog:




10:12 Heller affirmed.

10:13 The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.


10:13 Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.




Opinion details inbound.


I guess Montana won't have to secede just yet.



Background for the unaware:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a...e-on-gun-case/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller


Quote:
District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, is a case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an appeal from Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), a decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to rule that a firearm ban was an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to expressly interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to possess firearms for private use.[1]


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:21 AM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Rad!


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #3 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:23 AM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
It's about DAMN TIME!!!

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
 
post #4 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:27 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
10:23 Today's opinion by Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) is now available HERE.


10:24 Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.






This morning is a bit slow... I'm going to skim through the 157 page opinion. BRB


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #5 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:31 AM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
I wonder how hard it would be to use this to tell the assault weapons banners to fuck off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #6 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:32 AM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
OOraHH!

I'm betting that now would be a damned good time to be opening up a gun store in DC...
Fox466 is offline  
post #7 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:33 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
It was a 5-4 ruling; that's uncomfortably close for such an important topic.
mikeb is offline  
post #8 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:37 AM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
I wonder how hard it would be to use this to tell the assault weapons banners to fuck off.
It shouldn't be very hard, seeing as the second part says "...shall not be infringed."
My translation, Individuals have the right to own guns, and that right shall not be infringed.

How is that flexible at all?

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #9 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:38 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
I wonder how hard it would be to use this to tell the assault weapons banners to fuck off.
Good question.



From the majority opinion:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
.
Pp. 54–56



The first highlighted portion makes me think yes, the AWB crowd would have to FOAD. My AR15 is used for the exact same lawful purposes as their single shot .22LR rifle.


But the second highlighted portion seems a bit vague. Not enough to give legislators free reign to ban whatever they want, but just enough to not explicitly say they can't ban stuff.

Shit, I don't know. With the outcome of Heller if there is another AWB I would bet there's another appeal like this that would eventually make it's way to SCOTUS.




EDIT:Oh, and the last highlighed section... because none of this changes the Miller case ruling you just know the soccer moms will keep trying to ban the "shoulder things that go up."


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat

Last edited by Strychnine; 06-26-2008 at 08:44 AM.
Strychnine is offline  
post #10 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:43 AM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
The fact that the end of the second paragraph mentions "dangerous...weapons" worries me.

LOLz, yes, the part that you highlighted there in your edit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #11 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:44 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
The fact that the end of the second paragraph mentions "dangerous...weapons" worries me.
See my edit. We wre thinking the same thing at the same time.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #12 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:45 AM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine
See my edit. We wre thinking the same thing at the same time.
I see your edit and raise you my edit that refers to your edit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #13 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:46 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
I see your edit and raise you my edit that refers to your edit.
Fold.

*kicks dirt*


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #14 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:48 AM
Banned
 
DOHCTR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Waco
Posts: 5,539
I got up early to see the decision



Needless to say I am quite pleased with it
DOHCTR is offline  
post #15 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:53 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
The opinion is entertaining if you can get past some of the legal jargon.

Scalia is the fuckin' man! lol

From a footnote:

Quote:
And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that
the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.”

This one actually made me laugh out loud.

Quote:
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.

But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999).

Worse still, the phrase keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat

Last edited by Strychnine; 06-26-2008 at 09:00 AM.
Strychnine is offline  
post #16 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:56 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,194
Im glad this reaffirms that the 2nd is an individual right.

I just wish they would have ended it all here and quit with the fucking loseness of terms.
David is offline  
post #17 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 09:00 AM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
From page 70 of the opinion, From the Dissent:

“The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons”

Anyone notice the implied idea that Congress has the power to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it? I believe that is the first problem: Congress thinks they have the power to do whatever they want. Our government is too big, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are no longer a democracy. We may have a vote, but our leaders do whatever they want and very soon we will not have a voice.

Rant over.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #18 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 09:12 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow06
From page 70 of the opinion, From the Dissent:

“The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons”

Anyone notice the implied idea that Congress has the power to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it? I believe that is the first problem: Congress thinks they have the power to do whatever they want. Our government is too big, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are no longer a democracy. We may have a vote, but our leaders do whatever they want and very soon we will not have a voice.

Rant over.


Look in the majority opinion though. It may have been 5-4, but you can't take back a SCOTUS ruling. A win is a win.


We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights
.



They (the majority) understand, to put it bluntly, that, as the saying goes, "An armed populace are called citizens. An unarmed populace are called subjects."


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #19 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 09:13 AM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow06
Anyone notice the implied idea that Congress has the power to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it?
...but doesn't Congress have the power to make laws to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #20 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 09:13 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow06
We may have a vote, but our leaders do whatever they want and very soon we will not have a voice.

Rant over.
Welcome to 30 years ago.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #21 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 09:13 AM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow06
...Our government is too big, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are no longer a democracy. We may have a vote, but our leaders do whatever they want and very soon we will not have a voice...
That right there is just about sig worthy...
Fox466 is offline  
post #22 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 09:17 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
...but doesn't Congress have the power to make laws to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it?
Kinda like the states are supposed to have power over anything that is not specifically controlled by the govt. in the constitution? Shit's getting out of hand with "lawmakers" overstepping their bounds.

Which is why Oklahoma's House recently introduced a bill to declare sovereignty...

Quote:
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:
"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


And why Montana threatened to secede, depending on the outcome of Heller:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973142/posts





Anyway, that's for another thread.




So, anyone want to put bets on the next gun law that will be challenged and use Heller as precedent?


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #23 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 09:29 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,194
All these fucking crazy gun owners are gonna go after whatever they want. When there's no laws, they'll all be happy.

Personally, I think leave and let be. Good, guns we can own and it's been affirmed. Dont go starting to burn every bridge around and potentially let things get worse.
David is offline  
post #24 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 09:53 AM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
All of the "may issue" states are now going to be under fire.
Casper is offline  
post #25 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 10:02 AM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
...but doesn't Congress have the power to make laws to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it?
Yes, that is exactly the problem. Where does it stop? When will we decide that they have too much power? (I have decided that right about … NOW)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine
Look in the majority opinion though. It may have been 5-4, but you can't take back a SCOTUS ruling. A win is a win.

They (the majority) understand, to put it bluntly, that, as the saying goes, "An armed populace are called citizens. An unarmed populace are called subjects."
I agree. Now it is set in stone (or about as close as you can get). I was not aware that a SCOTUS ruling was so…final. I have never studied it really, but I assumed someone could veto/appeal/change their minds. Good to hear.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
Welcome to 30 years ago.
Well for the record I am only 21. I have just my eyes opened a bit recently. Never cared much about politics until about 7 or 8 months ago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by David
All these fucking crazy gun owners are gonna go after whatever they want. When there's no laws, they'll all be happy.

Personally, I think leave and let be. Good, guns we can own and it's been affirmed. Dont go starting to burn every bridge around and potentially let things get worse.
The law does say “…shall not be infringed”. Now I will be the first to say I’m glad they don’t allow some people to own guns (criminals/mentally ill) and do background check for CHL’s in Texas, but that is a hard section to misinterpret. I would say the laws mentioned above are “infringing”, but that is where common sense takes over. Anybody who thinks there should be no laws whatsoever is just not thinking straight.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #26 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 10:04 AM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
It was a 5-4 ruling; that's uncomfortably close for such an important topic.
Which is why justices have become the single most important issue in a Presidential race.

I almost pulled my dick out and blurka'd on the floor when I heard the decision.

1/19/09, the last day of Free America.
Pericles "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. "

"[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." --Samuel Adams


Sean88gt is offline  
post #27 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 10:20 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean88gt
Which is why justices have become the single most important issue in a Presidential race.
Yep, a democratic administration will replace conservative/constitutional judges with activist/liberal ones when a slot opens. I really hope we don't live to see activist judges take over SCOTUS; the country will then accelerate it's slide into the shitter and we'll begin to look just like europe.
mikeb is offline  
post #28 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 10:23 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Yep, a democratic administration will replace conservative/constitutional judges with activist/liberal ones when a slot opens. I really hope we don't live to see activist judges take over SCOTUS; the country will then accelerate it's slide into the shitter and we'll begin to look just like europe.
It's the way a democracy runs. The majority gets the spoils and the laws, no matter how ignornat the majority maybe. What's the saying, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"
David is offline  
post #29 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 10:52 AM
Time Served
 
97GTLunatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Little Elm/Frisco
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow06
From page 70 of the opinion, From the Dissent:

“The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons”

Anyone notice the implied idea that Congress has the power to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it? I believe that is the first problem: Congress thinks they have the power to do whatever they want. Our government is too big, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are no longer a democracy. We may have a vote, but our leaders do whatever they want and very soon we will not have a voice.

Rant over.
Actually if anyone has ever read the Federalist Papers, which the Federalists were the ones who wrote most of the Amendments to the Constitution, you would find that Congress has NO POWER to do ANYTHING not EXPLICITLY given to them, any powers not GIVEN to them, are to be considered an inherint (sp?) right of the people. The Second Amendment almost didnt even make it into the Constitution because it was considerd a "god given right to all men" and therefore needed no regulation or power by Congress to even mess with.

And I am TIRED of people saying we live in a Democracy, (you should be thankful we dont by the way, go read the History on all past and present "Democracies" and you will see they all eventually lead to Dictatorship) most Sheeple in America say that because we get to Vote for our leaders, HELLO! We are a REPUBLIC, thats the reason we have a Congress, and seperated branches of government, we are a REPRESENTATIVE form of Government, I.E. a REPUBLIC. Although it could be argued we are actually 3 different forms of Government which we took a little piece of each form and meshed it into 1 to suit what the ForeFathers envisioned.

Damn, I get so tired of watching the Sheeple on T.V. proclaiming they have a right to this and that, when most dont know anything past We the People.............
97GTLunatic is offline  
post #30 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 11:00 AM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine
So, anyone want to put bets on the next gun law that will be challenged and use Heller as precedent?
New York's licensing program. It is a "may issue" as opposed to a "shall issue".

Which could have repercussions in classIII tax stamp issue requirements.
Casper is offline  
post #31 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 11:08 AM
Time Served
 
97GTLunatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Little Elm/Frisco
Posts: 893
Here we go again

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
It's the way a democracy runs. The majority gets the spoils and the laws, no matter how ignornat the majority maybe. What's the saying, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

Please............Please............go read your history, the Founding Fathers were dead set AGAINST!!! us being a Democracy for that very reason, they knew that in a Democracy, the Majority could impose its will on the Minority, and therefore not ALL men would be Free, but be subject to the whims and will of the Majority.

We do have some Democracy elements in our form of Government, such as the right to Vote on Issues at our Local Levels and to Vote for our Representatives to Congress and Our President, thus why I mentioned above that we actually incorporate 3 different forms of Government. I dont have time or the will to post it all up here, but go do some digging on how our form of government came to be and you will realize we are Unique in our form of government, and is why we are still the most Free Society in the World.

All other forms of Government in the World have failed, Monotheism (Royalty i.e. England back in the Day), Democracy (most third world nations right now), Republic (Rome, had a Senate but no House of Rep.).

Please, those who are interested, go do some reading on America's form of government.
97GTLunatic is offline  
post #32 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 11:13 AM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by 97GTLunatic
Actually if anyone has ever read the Federalist Papers, which the Federalists were the ones who wrote most of the Amendments to the Constitution, you would find that Congress has NO POWER to do ANYTHING not EXPLICITLY given to them, any powers not GIVEN to them, are to be considered an inherint (sp?) right of the people. The Second Amendment almost didnt even make it into the Constitution because it was considerd a "god given right to all men" and therefore needed no regulation or power by Congress to even mess with.

And I am TIRED of people saying we live in a Democracy, (you should be thankful we dont by the way, go read the History on all past and present "Democracies" and you will see they all eventually lead to Dictatorship) most Sheeple in America say that because we get to Vote for our leaders, HELLO! We are a REPUBLIC, thats the reason we have a Congress, and seperated branches of government, we are a REPRESENTATIVE form of Government, I.E. a REPUBLIC. Although it could be argued we are actually 3 different forms of Government which we took a little piece of each form and meshed it into 1 to suit what the ForeFathers envisioned.

Damn, I get so tired of watching the Sheeple on T.V. proclaiming they have a right to this and that, when most dont know anything past We the People.............
Haha. It sure doesn't seem that way anymore.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #33 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 11:17 AM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by 97GTLunatic
Please............Please............go read your history, the Founding Fathers were dead set AGAINST!!! us being a Democracy for that very reason, they knew that in a Democracy, the Majority could impose its will on the Minority, and therefore not ALL men would be Free, but be subject to the whims and will of the Majority.

We do have some Democracy elements in our form of Government, such as the right to Vote on Issues at our Local Levels and to Vote for our Representatives to Congress and Our President, thus why I mentioned above that we actually incorporate 3 different forms of Government. I dont have time or the will to post it all up here, but go do some digging on how our form of government came to be and you will realize we are Unique in our form of government, and is why we are still the most Free Society in the World.

All other forms of Government in the World have failed, Monotheism (Royalty i.e. England back in the Day), Democracy (most third world nations right now), Republic (Rome, had a Senate but no House of Rep.).

Please, those who are interested, go do some reading on America's form of government.
Well whatever you want to call our form of government, it is going the way of the shitter also.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #34 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 11:41 AM
BP
Keep your unicorns
 
BP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: At the Dexter Lake Club
Posts: 12,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
It was a 5-4 ruling; that's uncomfortably close for such an important topic.
Justices are picked by presidents, it's no secret that Bush appointed the most conservative people he could and Clinton went with the most liberal. Political ties shouldn't matter when it comes to interpreting the constitution but it does.

Just thank goodness that Bush didn't cave on the Roberts and Alito nominations.

Buell 1125R
Raptor 700R
No fast cars though
BP is offline  
post #35 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 12:14 PM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Yep, a democratic administration will replace conservative/constitutional judges with activist/liberal ones when a slot opens. I really hope we don't live to see activist judges take over SCOTUS; the country will then accelerate it's slide into the shitter and we'll begin to look just like europe.
It is written (provided we could muster the testicular fortitude) that we can remove and restore.

1/19/09, the last day of Free America.
Pericles "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. "

"[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." --Samuel Adams


Sean88gt is offline  
post #36 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 12:21 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by 97GTLunatic
Please............Please............go read your history, the Founding Fathers were dead set AGAINST!!! us being a Democracy for that very reason, they knew that in a Democracy, the Majority could impose its will on the Minority, and therefore not ALL men would be Free, but be subject to the whims and will of the Majority.

We do have some Democracy elements in our form of Government, such as the right to Vote on Issues at our Local Levels and to Vote for our Representatives to Congress and Our President, thus why I mentioned above that we actually incorporate 3 different forms of Government. I dont have time or the will to post it all up here, but go do some digging on how our form of government came to be and you will realize we are Unique in our form of government, and is why we are still the most Free Society in the World.

All other forms of Government in the World have failed, Monotheism (Royalty i.e. England back in the Day), Democracy (most third world nations right now), Republic (Rome, had a Senate but no House of Rep.).

Please, those who are interested, go do some reading on America's form of government.
History is just that it's history.

Times have evolved. Whether the fore fathers intended this to going the way that it is. We are ran by who ever the majority of the people are, whether we like it or not. Whether they be ignorant or scholars.
David is offline  
post #37 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 12:48 PM
DFW MUSTANGS . NET
 
HOOCBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW MUSTANGS . NET
Posts: 3,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
History is just that it's history.

Times have evolved. Whether the fore fathers intended this to going the way that it is. We are ran by who ever the majority of the people are, whether we like it or not. Whether they be ignorant or scholars.
Except you get 1 person bitching about their kid saying the pledge in school and all of a sudden it's unconstitutional to make the kids recite? What about the 10% or less that actually bitch about the kweers "not having the same right to marry" as heteros?

We do not live in a society of majorities, but squeeky wheels. And it's only going to get worse if that douchebag Osama gets elected.

HOOCBB is offline  
post #38 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 03:22 PM
Lifer
 
03trubluGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DFW
Posts: 12,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
It was a 5-4 ruling; that's uncomfortably close for such an important topic.

That's no joke.

I'm getting VERY uncomfortable with the upcoming elections.
03trubluGT is offline  
post #39 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 04:33 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT
That's no joke.

I'm getting VERY uncomfortable with the upcoming elections.

You can thank W for this ruling, he appointed the right judges.
CJ is offline  
post #40 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 06:37 PM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Less than 12 hours since the ruling, the NRA has already started filing lawsuits against Chicago and San Francisco for their handgun bans.



.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat

Last edited by Strychnine; 06-26-2008 at 06:53 PM.
Strychnine is offline  
post #41 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:00 PM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
There's a VERY interesting thread over on AR about some of Scalia's writings...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=725111

Passages like these, and what they could mean for future cases. The court can not rule on any issue not specifically brought before them... but some of these excerpts seem to open the door for future pro-gun cases.


It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty
. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large
. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.



The First Amendment contains the
freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,
which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure
of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely
unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second
Amendment is no different



JUSTICE BREYER correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws,
would pass rational-basis scrutiny. But rational-basis
scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws
under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on
irrational laws.
In those cases, “rational basis”
is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the
constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to
evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific,
enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against
double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear
arms. If all that was required to overcome the right to
keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would
be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irra-
tional laws, and would have no effect.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #42 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2008, 07:45 PM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Talking







.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #43 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2008, 07:52 PM
Arbeit Macht Frei
 
PooterWS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mozambique
Posts: 19,759
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine

Right click-save as like a mother fucker!

"Wealth Dies, Kinsman Die, A man himself must likewise die; But word-fame, Never dies, For him who achieves it well"
-Hávamál-

PooterWS6 is offline  
post #44 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2008, 10:22 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
the people trying to ban these weapons are some unamerican bastards.right there in black and white as our second ammendment and yet we still have poeple tring to strip our rights away.

unfuckingbeleivable!

these traders should be delt with...

im glad the court made this decision but 5-4 is way to uncomfortable.leads me to think that they will start round 2 with this and either stop the public sale of ammo or restrict the crap out of firearms to where we have to have a nuece around our neck if we own a firearm.

this decision will make us all happy but watch out for what follows...





again, "come and take it!"

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #45 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-29-2008, 12:57 AM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast83
again, "come and take it!"


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #46 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-29-2008, 09:09 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
wtf

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #47 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-29-2008, 01:24 PM Thread Starter
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast83
wtf

.
Quote:
Two little words. With these two ancient Greek words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind.

In 480 BC, King Xerxes of Persia (son of Darius, who was defeated in a prior attempt to take Greece) had landed in Greece and was in full preparation to invade Athens, the leader of the independent Greek city-states as part of his strategic plan to conquer all of Greece.

King Leonidas of Sparta (left) and another Greek city-state agreed to help stop the invading Persians, and marched with 300 hand-picked troops to Thermopylae on the north coast of Greece. Thermopylae was the best of three possible defensive areas in which Xerxes' invading army had to advance. This mountain gap along the coast was about 60 feet wide, and was the best location for a blocking action. Since the 300 knew they were going to die fighting against overwhelming force the first requirement was that each man had to have a son left behind..
When Leonidas was preparing to make his stand, a Persian envoy arrived. The envoy attempted to convince Leonidas of the futility of trying to resist the advance of the huge Persian army and demanded that the Spartans lay down their arms.

"Our archers are so numerous,"said the envoy, "that the flight of their arrows darkens the sun."

"So much the better,"replied Dienekes, a Spartan warrior, "for we shall fight them in the shade."
Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms.

Leonidas shouted back: "MOLON LABE!" (pronounced mo-lone lah-veh), which means "Come and Get Them!"


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #48 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-29-2008, 01:27 PM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine
.
Nice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #49 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-29-2008, 09:27 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
MOLON LABE by all means!

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #50 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-30-2008, 07:31 AM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Audemus iura nostra defendere! Regnat populus! Justitia omnibus! Virtute et armis! Sic semper tyrannis!

or in shorthand AL AR DC MS VA
Casper is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome