Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Quigley_Sharps, Jun 28, 2010.


  1. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    <CITE>AP – <ABBR class=recenttimedate title=2010-06-28T10:59:04-0700>32 mins ago</ABBR> </CITE>
    <!-- end .hd -->[​IMG] <CITE>AP</CITE>
    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court's embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice. Full Story » [applaud]
     
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

  3. alanz

    alanz Monkey+

    I don't need a supreme court to know I have the right to own a gun.
     
  4. CraftyMofo

    CraftyMofo Monkey+++

    Good comment Alanz, my first thought when I read your post was, "I don't need the affirmation of the SCOTUS, but a lot of lawmakers do."
     
  5. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!

    I want to be happy, but 4 of the SOBs voted against.
    Now, given that that our current government puts forth no pretense of ethics, I don't doubt that they'll throw a trumped up case before them when the balance of liberal vs conservative turns in their favor.
     
  6. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    [applaud].

    a good time to have activist judges.
     
  7. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Ivan, you rabble rouser, just exactly what do you believe in? It is extremely hard to follow what you say in a logical manner. a little clarification would be helpful.
    .
    this is not meant to be inflamitory or argumentative, i am just trying to understand and get a grasp on things.
    .
    you have the right to believe whatever you want.
     
  8. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    All I want to know, is when I can go to the store and pick up a pistol to use for home defense without a permit.
     
  9. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    on this specific subject I believe that all persons have a right, and also to a certain extent an obligation, to arm themselves. the right because it is the underpinning of all other rights and the obligation because the whole of the world save a few backwaters are still under the yoke of capitalist modes of production and no matter how desirable a peaceful transition away from that is, i don't think it very likely.

    i also believe that the principle of incorporation isn't a very firmly grounded one constitutionally speaking. hence doing it is judicial activism, albeit a generally positive form.



    if you ment the question in a broader sense i would describe my political views as firmly anti-capitalist and vaguely Leninist.
     
  10. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Ivan, your political outlook is as obscure as Sasquatch's footprints. But in this instance, if you mean that a collective is stronger than the sum of it's parts, I'll agree. With but one caveat, anyway, that being that the collective is allowed to think for itself rather than having it's "guidance" imposed by a central "authority." Thus, it seems that being an anti capitalist does you no good when the collective takes on the self governing and directional trappings of a corporation.

    So I guess your heartburn comes from the laws and regulations under which corporations operate? That is a different question entirely, and goes to the misunderstood and ill conceived idea that corporations are naturally greedy. Requiring more and tighter regulations simply will have the central authority doing micro management, which we have seen fail in the former USSR and others along the way.

    So is there a happy medium? Dunno. But I do know that as long as we have the Madoffs of the world running loose, we have dishonorable men running things; and the Brooklyn Bridge will be sold again and again.

    Now, we need to get back on the topic of gun "control" or not as seen by SCOTUS. The Court is charged with interpreting the laws if and when there is a legal challenge. Rightly or wrongly, there is rather more often than not a hole in a law (or regulation) that could not be foreseen when the law was written. The Court has the unenviable job of trying to determine if the item in question is covered by existing law. If the item is covered, SCOTUS will never see the question, lower courts will answer the charge. If there is an ambiguity, SCOTUS makes a decision, and that decision might very well be not what we want to see. If we don't like it, we get to raise the issue with the congress critters and get the law changed. Well, that's how it's supposed to work, anyway. This case, once again, shows that the personal outlook (maybe influenced by upbringing or personal belief) of the justices can influence the decision (and also why there is a odd number on the bench.) All this crap about "activist" judges is so much bull dung, they call it as they see it based on their backgrounds and reading of existing law, nothing more. They do not "make" law. (They do establish precedence, which is challenged rarely and with the private parts well armored. Precedence is NOT law, but sure seems like it sometimes.)

    We like this decision, and we are happy that Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, and rest of the sycophants are not on the bench. That said, my money is on another go 'round from a different angle until or unless the legislature closes things off with clarification. That will not happen in my lifetime.
     
  11. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!


    Capitalism in it's purest form is the right to trade freely amongst ourselves. More specifically, the right to pool capital for the sake of investing in larger ventures. We do NOT have this right in the US today as there is no legal ability to trade freely when the IRS has agents at freakin' flea markets.
    This right was exercised in open air markets back to biblical times as such, I'd call it a human and thus constitutional right.

    Now, I'll give you this: The multinational corporation with lobbyists on hire and politicians in pocket were not the thing envisioned by the framers.
     
  12. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    a fiendish plot im sure. you could just call me a communist, less specific but still reasonably accurate.


    its not so much about the collective being stronger then the sum, but about the collective having the right. everyone is entitled to the value of their productive labor. building a machine is productive labor. designing a machine is productive labor. operating a machine is productive labor. owning a machine is not productive labor. and yet in the status quo owning a machine not only entitles you to whatever percentage of the value it helps generate you want but also to make every decision about how that machine operates. this is unacceptable. the wealth should be had by the workers who generate it and decisions regarding any particular means of production should be made by the people who operate it on a day to day basis.

    well corporations make profit. thats all they do, its why they exist. even when making profit means doing something less efficiently or unsafely. that certainly can be called 'greedy' imo.

    also, the USSR went from a nation of potato farming peasants in 1917 to having more industrial output then all of europe combined in the 40s. thats the kind of failure i could get behind to be honest.
     
  13. Idahoser

    Idahoser Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Where did this ridiculous notion come from? When and where has this EVER been true?
     
  14. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT !!!
    .
    LOL .... well you are obviously expressing it right now .... CASE CLOSED !!!
    .
    Or, were you maybe expecting one of us to be struck down by lightning, or having our door kicked in by stormtroopers and hauled off to a gulag???
     
  15. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    Welcome to the world of free will and contracts. If you DECIDE by FREE WILL and pure, personal CHOICE that you want to work for a company, then you agree, by default, that your work products are not yours and any benefit (monetary or otherwise ) unless explicitly noted, is also, not yours.

    You do have the absolute right, not to enter into any of these such agreements resulting in employment. But my ideas are my own. If I choose to create a company that encompasses my ideas and MY hard work and I want to capitalize on it, I am well within my right to do so. At which point I may offer contracts for employment such that I can capitalize further on MY works and MY ideas. Should I decide to treat my employees to special benefits, and I probably would out of respect, that is my choice.

    I think your beef, Ivan, is you see (as many of us do) that malevolent greed has obfuscated or perhaps even replaced capitalism entirely. What's going on here, in the USA, is not real capitalism. It's crony capitalism and the workers get crapped on. If the workers were treated with more respect and perhaps a nice reward during times of prosperity, then I think you would think differently.. maybe. But the fact remains that just because you "build" something, it doesn't give you the right to my conceptions. I've compensated you for your work by giving you a paycheck at the very least. Anything above that is purely out of respect.

    Why do you think people start their own businesses? Like you, I don't want to use MY brain power to make someone else fatter. I get that part. I just don't have the resources to start my own company.
     
  16. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    I'll buy into your statement that the USSR walloped most of Europe in terms of output post war. I will not buy into it being well, or safely, or efficiently, done under the centralized control, nor can I believe that the population wasn't oppressed and driven as slaves while that was happening. With production misdirected into things that had no particular value to the people, shortages abounded well into the 60s if not later. The Soviet elite (yes there were elitists, and corrupt at that) used the US and others as a means to drive war material production at the expense of housing, for example. Jealousy of US wealth and a paranoid fear of invasion took care of the rest. They lost sight of the fact they had nothing the west really wanted bad enough to invade against an almost inexhaustible quantity of cannon fodder (as the Third Reich found out.)

    Your papers, comrade. Oops, the ink is smudged. To the Siberian gulag with you, we need you to mine coal and iron for our inefficient power plants, smelters, and forges.

    Farg. Now you've done it; made me go off topic again.
     
  17. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!

    Government is greed and power wrapped into one, unbridled and with no accountability.

    Even in this corrupt era, for the most part, I can choose which corporations I want to patronize. I can also sue them if something goes wrong.

    John Grisham novels aside, corporations don't impose their will with the muzzle of a gun. Governments do so ALWAYS and ONLY.
     
  18. fortunateson

    fortunateson I hate Illinois Nazis!

    Says who?
    Stating it as "owning a machine" implies that mere ownership can organize and efficiently run a factory. That is a deceptive statement.
    Running a business IS productive labor and few can do it well - especially government bureaucrats .

    Wealth should be had in proportion to a persons ability. Of course it's pointless to argue this with someone who's basic philosophy encompasses "each according to his need".

    But the point of failure here has been shown again and again throughout history - That is that able men will not settle for the wages of incompetents and incompetents should not be given the wages of able men.
    The return argument is that able men should volunteer their labor for the benefit of the state (and presumably honorable government ??)
    Many have perished waiting for the human spirit to attain this enlightened state. It hasn't happened nor will it any time soon.

    Of course, Ayn Rand says it better than I ever could.
     
  19. KHAN

    KHAN Monkey+++

    Pretty sad that the Supreme Court has to rule on something that is spelled out so clearly in the Constitution. Oh well, as Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid." So I guess they have to spell it out for the few.
     
  20. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    I'm very impressed with the critical thought produced by the monkeybrains participating in this thread. Logic and civil political discourse too! Perhaps I should take the wife out to the movies more often, let you guys stretch your legs without all my childish goofy stuff getting in the way....
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7