...but of course, none of THOSE judges are "activist"...[quote]In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitution..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Double Dong Kagan will do something about that

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 03:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1973
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, June 28, 2010 7:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


...but of course, none of THOSE judges are "activist"...
Quote:

In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

I fear for our country under this group of Supremes, given their unquestionable ideological bias. They're getting bolder and bolder, and there's nothing we citizens can do about it.

I know who will defend them, but the fact is they ARE being activist, they ARE expanding things which reflect right-wing ideology, and given they have the majority, they are free to run roughshod over our Constitution.

This
Quote:

"will doubtless trigger a new round of litigation" — for example, challenges to local restrictions on gun possession by people younger than 21 or by noncitizens. And D.C. isn’t out of the legal woods: A plaintiff from the Heller case is trying to gain the right to carry weapons in public, while other gun-rights advocates are challenging the new D.C. law that was written to comply with Heller.
Don't kid yourself; the NRA is already planning on challenging all kinds of gun laws, knowing which way this would go.



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 7:51 AM

FIVVER


Yeah, it's real right wing activism when the court rules that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 7:51 AM

FIVVER


D@mn you double post!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:00 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Now, Niki - In another thread you applauded people breaking the law to stage unpermitted illegal protests, and basically claimed that they have a "right" to do so. The Constitution says the people have a right to keep and bear arms, too; shouldn't you be applauding this ruling? If the document guarantees me the right to keep and bear, then surely it's fine to go around with my gun on my hip, anywhere and everywhere, right? Even in, say, the middle of an illegal protest?

Just sayin'.


"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."


On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:01 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Damn those crazy judges!

How DARE they read the Bill of Rights?

How DARE they acknowledge that the right to self-defense is a natural right that cannot be denied to people?

TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


It will go far further than what you see on the surface:
Quote:

activists behind McDonald openly explain that the reason they are pushing the Court to overrule Slaughter-House has nothing to do with guns. Instead, they want to advance a libertarian economic agenda, where federal judges could sit in judgment of state and local laws involving labor, employment, business regulations and other economic issues. Although the Constitution is silent on these matters, these activists want the courts to start declaring constitutional rights against such things, and using the power of the federal judiciary to strike down laws of this sort that the judges don’t like.
Quote:

Advocates for gun rights quickly declared the ruling a landmark victory and said they would seek to strike down gun regulations across the country. “This is a great moment in American history,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association.
......
The decision went further than even the Bush administration had sought, but it probably leaves most firearms laws intact. It also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but it left intact the licensing of guns, and it upheld longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill.

Some of you obviously hail this, but it worries me, and I, too, find it amusing (and sad) that all who argue in favor of states' rights will no doubt be in favor of this, cvonsidering what it will bring in future: more federal power, less states' rights.

The gun-rights advocates and the NRA "won", but it will empower the NRA to expand gun rights beyond what you envision, at the coming price of states' rights, and our country losees.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:12 AM

FIVVER


Niki,

Here's the 10th amendment:
"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."

All the court ruled is that gun ownership is an individual, not a federal or state right.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:15 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I fear for our country under this group of Supremes, given their unquestionable ideological bias. They're getting bolder and bolder, and there's nothing we citizens can do about it.


You can buy a gun...


H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I find those statements amazing. I said I found your remarks 'amazing'" Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:19 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by fivver:
Yeah, it's real right wing activism when the court rules that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


This Court is out of control. When they eat out and order spagetti and meatballs, they want spagetti and meatballs rather then the liberal waiter's interpretation of what they ordered and his substitution of what they 'really meant'.

I plan to celebrate this ruling and the 4th of July by buying a new handgun, drinking some Sam Adams, and watching TV. God Bless America!

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I find those statements amazing. I said I found your remarks 'amazing'" Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You aren't getting it, and you won't until you see the results. The court essentially said that their FEDERAL rulings have precedence over states' or cities' rulings. That will be expanded.

As will the NRA challenge lots and lots of stuff from this point forward, including some very important, logical safeties now in place.

Time will tell, but I see the intentions of both groups and fear them. Precedent has been set for others to use, it's not just about "guns". Enjoy your "triumph" while you can, I fear as time goes on you'll understand what I fear.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:15 AM

REENACT12321


I see and understand Niki that you're worried that it's this type of motion by the court, the overriding of state & local legislature by federal as being dangerous territory. However, I don't really think that's what happened here. The 2nd amendment is something that 1. Is part of the constitution, not just some congressional legislature that came through yesterday. 2. An issue the potency and validity of in terms of how it applies to local governments, that has been sitting on the fence for a long time, and these justices just decided to finally make a call.

In the firearms realm, I totally agree too. I live in Chicago. The illegality of handguns went really to no lengths to stop violent crime. Parts of the city see immense murder rates and almost all of them involve a handgun, something that on paper should not even exist within city limits. Allowing upstanding non-felonious citizens to own them, doesn't really affect anything because the hoods who wanted them got them anyway.

As legislation and supreme court precedent concerns go. I really doubt this will be the cornerstone of a new trend where the Supreme court becomes some tribunal of tyrannical terror over the state and local laws. This was more a matter of no one wanted to make a call, and in the meantime the state and local laws made their own call, and finally the federal government made a call, to recognize the amendment at face value, thereby invalidating a FEW local laws that had sprung up in the meantime, most of which are not going to be terribly noticeable. The big kicker will be handgun bans in Chicago, which may have some repricussions, but my bet is most of which will be a minor increase in illegal circulation, but a decrease in home invasions and other crimes that the lack of a firearm in the home gave confidence to criminals.

Plus, I get behind most gun legislation, because I'm a WWII reenactor and I'd like to be able to have/transport my collections without constantly being so worried I'm going to be pulled over and have them taken away because I had a burnt out tail light and I didn't have some little nit picky law seen to in the county I was driving through to get there.

"...we need a hood ornament..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I certainly hope you're right; as I've said in the gun debates in the past, I have NO problem with someone having a gun in their home for self-protection, as long as it's done safely. If this is used as precedent to accomplish open carry or expand the definitions of what is legal, as in automatic weapons, etc., that's another matter.

I see intended challenges which will try to use this as a precedent by several groups, and that's what worries me. Only time will tell if they are successful or not.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:42 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


The SCOTUS ruled that the states DON't have the power to ignore the Bill of Rights.

That the Bill of Rights trumps state and Federal power.

WHY do you have a problem with this?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


The 2nd Amendment has been upheld by the Supreme Court, 5-4.

This should have been a lay up, a 9-0 vote, and some are talking about a "conservative" supreme court ?

Wow.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:48 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"The 2nd Amendment has been upheld by the Supreme Court, 5-4.

This should have been a lay up, a 9-0 vote, and some are talking about a "conservative" supreme court ?

Wow."

No kidding.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Why do I have a problem with this? Because this is the real world, and precedents are used to gain things NOT in the Constitution, because judges are not immune to ideology and influence, and because there are people who see this as an opening to far more deleterious things.

What is written or planned by the "Founding Fathers" is not always what happens. I understand enough about politics and government to fear things I see ALREADY being targeted by groups who see this as an opening. It's the way politics and people work.

I understand why you don't fear this; I also understand why you can't understand my concerns. Let it go at that, and we'll see what the future holds.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:07 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


The future?

Its me holding another gun.

I would suggest you look into buying one yourself.

The 2a was always about 2 things..

1. Recognizing the natural rights of citizens to own weapons of self-defense.

2. Using those weapons in self-defense... AND AGAINST A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:18 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Don't worry Nix.

You still have the right to be a helpless victim. You still have the right to object to others NOT being a victim to crime or government.

What has happened tho, is that your opinion only goes as far as you NOT buying a gun. Everyone else can (and will).

So by all means. Please. Put up a sign in your yard and on your door, that you oppose gun ownership. That you are without the means of self-protection.

It will be a grand political statement. Why, I think you should leave your front door unlocked as well.

Comeon.. stand behind your convictions. Noone should own the horrible gun, right? So, prove it.

ANNOUNCE to the WORLD that you are unarmed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:27 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


What? No? The SCOTUS ruling really chaps doesn't it?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No, I was off posting in another thread, if it is to that which you were referring. This post is of little interest, but I checked it before I left because it was at the top.

I won't call you the names you deserve, I will merely point out that Jim owns several guns; the recent decision CONCERNS me, it doens't "chap"--whatever that means; if I put a sign out on my lawn saying I opposed UNIVERSAL gun ownership or ownership of automatic weapons, neighbors would applaud (as they did of my various anti-Dumbya bumperstickers); I am no victim and have taken care of myself in several uncomfortable situations with need for a gun; we have neighborhood watch; and, lastly, in the 35+ years we have owned our home, we have never once locked our front door. I'm sorry you and others don't live in an equally civilized place.

Now I'm going to go eat breakfast (it being after 1:00!), so that will explain any further lack of response, okay?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:41 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Just make sure it doesn't have any "salt" in it. It's illegal in some places... :)P

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 12:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


I'm not a 2A fan as people know, but I'm indifferent towards this one. The ban does not seem to have been having any effect, the murder rate in Chicago has been a the reasonably steep incline as of late. Civil war in woodlawn, can't drive down obama's old street, they'll shoot you. So, if someone hws a better idea, let's hear it, but chucking the constitution, probably not a good idea. And not solving the problem.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 1:02 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Chucking the Constitution? How about enforcing the Bill of Rights, which is what this does?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 1:23 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Yeah, I don't really see this as usurping any states' rights, but rather as reaffirming what the Second Amendment says; the handgun ban in Chicago (and the previous one in D.C.) were in fact usurping THE PEOPLES' rights (according to the Constitution), which is what the Court has upheld.

I don't expect gun crime is going to skyrocket in Chicago because of this. As has been noted time and time again, criminals tend to not really pay attention to the laws, which is kind of how they get labeled "criminals" in the first place.;)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 1:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Wulfie ?

Get off my side - I swear, if I *wanted* to create a strawman sockpuppet for anti-gun folk, I wouldn't even need to a long as you and your fekkin attitude are around.

You also have the right to remain silent, and sometimes I really wish to hell you'd fuckin use it.


Fivver
Quote:

All the court ruled is that gun ownership is an individual, not a federal or state right.

That part doesn't bother me.

Niki
Quote:

You aren't getting it, and you won't until you see the results. The court essentially said that their FEDERAL rulings have precedence over states' or cities' rulings. That will be expanded.

THAT part does.

And oh yes indeedy do I understand the concern, but it's pointless to try discussin it with morons so blind that their busy dancing a jig instead of goin "Heyyy, wait just a minute" at how the damn thing is worded.

I ain't one of those morons - I know a poison pill when I see one, and so I hope to hell the legal brawl does refine the arguments and produce some definable limits on how far they can push that shit.

While they're dancin over being handed a cracker, they don't see their fridge bein emptied... it's an old, old game.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 3:57 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Frem, I haven't read the Court's opinion yet, but can you enlighten me?

What I'm seeing is the Court upholding a "federal" ruling all right - that being the FEDERAL Constitution of the U.S., and asserting that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights supersede the laws passed by the states or cities.

Am I reading that wrong?


"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."


On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 4:27 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!



Double Dong Kagan will do something about that

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:59 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I am glad the right to keep and bear arms has been confirmed. However, I agree it's wise to know the whys and howfores of a thing as well as the what. Always look for the angles, and enjoy your confirmed rights meanwhile.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:19 PM

REENACT12321


wow i actually agree with kwicko. these were laws put in place while the fed couldn't decide whether to crap or get off the pot about changing the second amendment. the fed wasn't enforcing it and they weren't trying to amend it/ change it so local govs made some laws that now that the scotus said it stays and we support its full flegidly the brickabrack of little laws have to be mopped up. not a big deal and in my opinion not grounds or precedent for the scotus to rule fed laws can steam roll over local laws on a regular basis or for much movement on the gun front. however it will stand as important in defining what infringement means and may set a barthat other local laws may be judged by. something of an unhappy thought for both parties as a compromise definition rarely satisfied either party. however the setting of this definition has been a long time coming and its lack up til now has been why the fed didnt strike down local laws as they sprung up. hard to enforce something that has no clear definition

"...we need a hood ornament..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:20 PM

REENACT12321


sorry double post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:55 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Reenact: Yup - you CAN pass a law regarding just about anything - literacy tests for voters, "whites only" drinking fountains, etc. And it will stand until challenged and ruled on, and the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of whether that law meets the standards set out by the Constitution.

In this case (and in Heller, in D.C.), the Court has ruled that the law as written doesn't pass muster. It doesn't mean other laws won't be written and passed, or that another Court won't uphold them. But for now, this ruling sets precedent that will be used in an attempt to strike down similar bans elsewhere.

I still don't see the "steamroller" effect, though. I'm curious as to whether those who do see it as the big bad Fed trampling states' rights would feel the same way if the Court had struck down bans on gay marriage by some states...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA



I'm still pickin at it Mikey, this kinda legalese doubletalk you gotta sit there and chew at every word as they try to redefine what the meaning of is, is - and all that merry rot, and reference obscure assumptions from other cases and stuff and so you really do have to sit there and grind on it, and I got a lot to do today, guy.

Yanno, if they'd speak the same plain english the guys who WROTE the friggin Constitution did (and for the express, explicit REASON that everyone could understand it) this wouldn't be an issue.

But then, everyone would also have to accept that the 2nd Amendment means WTF it says - and they dun wanna do that, some people...

And spinning up the language to mean something opposite of what's said, well you can thank that punk John Jay for that shit, with the aiding and abetting of his fellow Federalists Hamilton and Madison.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, November 8, 2024 02:16 - 4631 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Fri, November 8, 2024 00:45 - 646 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Fri, November 8, 2024 00:27 - 56 posts
ASSHOLE Diversity Hire Racist Joy Reid Attempts and Fails to Appropriate Meme Culture
Fri, November 8, 2024 00:23 - 24 posts
TDS
Fri, November 8, 2024 00:12 - 30 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 7, 2024 23:44 - 4684 posts
MAGA movement
Thu, November 7, 2024 21:06 - 4 posts
U.S. Senate Races 2024
Thu, November 7, 2024 20:52 - 12 posts
Who Is The Next Vice President?
Thu, November 7, 2024 20:48 - 27 posts
Elon Musk
Thu, November 7, 2024 19:34 - 34 posts
Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould: The scandal that could unseat Canada's PM
Thu, November 7, 2024 19:30 - 70 posts
They are "eating dogs" and "eating the cats" illegals ‘they’re eating the pets’ ?
Thu, November 7, 2024 19:23 - 59 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL