Obama Going For Gun Salesmen of the Year - Firearms Sales Surging
42 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50554923]Okay, but that needs a majority agreement to actually happen correct? Even if there are more Democrat justices than Republican, what are the possibilities they all walk the exact same party line?
The Supreme Court Justices seem pretty autonomous, doing whatever the fuck they want rather than what the other branches of government are asking. They don't need to play by a party playbook as it's a lifetime service if they don't step down. And a quick Google search tells me only one Justice has ever been removed by force (legally).[/QUOTE]
Judges, especially liberal judges, almost unanimously vote down party line.
[editline]20th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50554917]The Cruikshank decision in 1876 already defined the legal precedent that the right to bear arms is not defended by the constitution. This was 140 years ago. The idea that the second amendment defines the right of [i]anyone[/i] to bear arms hasn't existed since Heller in 2008. The "living constitution" argument is the reason the second amendment fight is around. It's been expanded since then - the legal precedent that the Second Amendment exists for more than organized state militias is very recent and is a consequence of the "living constitution" idea that you always criticize in these threads.
I agree with these interpretations - and I don't want to see gun rights stripped away either. Limitations and regulations that make sense, unlike the AWB? Absolutely necessary. Give each gun title and registration to a specific owner, require a federally-certified training course to purchase a gun (just like driver's ed), and you still have open gun access without the absurdity of a gun being easier to buy than a motorcycle. Why is that bad?[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between creating a new interpretation that you believe fits with the times and trying to better fit with the framers intentions. The court's decision in the case you mentioned went directly against the intentions of the framers of the 14th amendment. By reversing that decision they were getting closer, not further to a strict view of the Constitution. That's not at all an example of the living constitution theory.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50554882]Politicians? No. Judges? Absolutely. The idea of a living constitution makes the amendment process obsolete for getting good rid of the 2nd amendment through reinterpretation.[/QUOTE]
>Some retarded judges get elected, interprets the second amendment as only applying to muskets
>democrats push through mandatory registration and confiscation and ban all modern firearms
>people loose their shit and start to realize what the second amendment was meant for
Yeah not going to happen by a long shot any time soon, and by that time we will have weapons far more powerful than modern firearms so I think the AR-15 will be safe.
Fun fact: U.S. military personnel swear an oath to the U.S. constitution, not the government. What do you think all of this implies?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;50556481]>Some retarded judges get elected, interprets the second amendment as only applying to muskets
>democrats push through mandatory registration and confiscation and ban all modern firearms
>people loose their shit and start to realize what the second amendment was meant for
Yeah not going to happen by a long shot any time soon, and by that time we will have weapons far more powerful than modern firearms so I think the AR-15 will be safe.
Fun fact: U.S. military personnel swear an oath to the U.S. constitution, not the government. What do you think all of this implies?[/QUOTE]
Don't do this man, green text is bannable
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50554959]If someone is concerned about the government calling them crazy and stealing their guns, and feel that they need their weapons to defend themselves against federal agents in a case like that - they are unstable.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm sure all those people who got their doors kicked in during Hurricane Katrina can relate to this statement.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50556635]Yeah, I'm sure all those people who got their doors kicked in during Hurricane Katrina can relate to this statement.[/QUOTE]
you mean the ones that were submerged in 10 feet of water? again, a great example of the federal government saying something probably going to happen, and then people complaining when it did
[QUOTE=Sableye;50556805]you mean the ones that were submerged in 10 feet of water? again, a great example of the federal government saying something probably going to happen, and then people complaining when it did[/QUOTE]Yeah the entire city was submerged and people were in their scuba gear clutching their murder guns. Right. I guess tackling the shit out of an old lady in her home for having a gun is A-OK in your head because reasons and also water:
[url]https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/11-30557[/url]
[url]http://www.examiner.com/article/five-years-later-no-accountability-for-post-katrina-gun-grab[/url]
[url]https://web.archive.org/web/20080907231302/http://www.ktvu.com/video/4946889/index.html[/url]
(granted I can't watch the video because of my connection, just like searching for sources is a bitch)
There was even a suit over it filed by the NRA:
[url]http://www.theshootist.net/2008/12/court-decision-on-new-orleans-gun.html[/url]
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/26/nra-lawsuit-new-orleans-gun-owners-rights-violated-during-katrina-firearm.html[/url]
[url]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm[/url]
Oh and there was a bill signed into law specifically to prevent this from happening again:
[url]https://scalise.house.gov/press-release/scalise-nra-new-orleans-settle-suit-over-katrina-gun-seizures[/url]
[url]https://www.nraila.org/articles/20060612/louisiana-governor-kathleen-blanco-sign[/url]
Huh. Guess maybe it was kind of serious after all.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50556805]you mean the ones that were submerged in 10 feet of water? again, a great example of the federal government saying something probably going to happen, and then people complaining when it did[/QUOTE]
I think you're misunderstanding what I meant to imply. During that hurricane, the state basically declared martial law and started going door to door looking for people's guns and either confiscating or destroying them on sight. It was like literally the NRA boogeyman of "the gubmint gonna take my guns!", except [B]it actually happened[/B].
I mean, there were like documentaries, video footage, and news reports of the entire incident and the mayor ended up being kicked out of office.
Get your head out of the sand, Holy shit...
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50557274]I think you're misunderstanding what I meant to imply. During that hurricane, the state basically declared martial law and started going door to door looking for people's guns and either confiscating or destroying them on sight. It was like literally the NRA boogeyman of "the gubmint gonna take my guns!", except [B]it actually happened[/B].
I mean, there were like documentaries, video footage, and news reports of the entire incident and the mayor ended up being kicked out of office.
Get your head out of the sand, Holy shit...[/QUOTE]
Sure makes the "the gubbermint gon' take mah gerns" seem like a legitimate concern rather than just the tinfoil hat theory everyone of a particular agenda brushes off.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50554959]If someone is concerned about the government calling them crazy and stealing their guns, and feel that they need their weapons to defend themselves against federal agents in a case like that - they are unstable.[/QUOTE]
This happened in Canada. RCMP busted into 1900 homes exclusively to search for guns. For no other reason than to disarm the citizens of High River, Alberta.
[url]http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/11/kicking-down-doors-of-high-river-gun-controversy[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQiCDYowi4[/url]
[url]http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/mounties-improperly-seized-guns-from-evacuated-homes-during-high-river-flood-watchdog-says[/url] - Commission for Complaints against RCMP reported that the RCMP broke the law. Nothing so far has happened to anyone in the RCMP or government because of this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.