Discussion in 'Legal' started by ctdonath, Jul 16, 2007.
I dont think you'll find many people that disagree with that on here.
That is because it takes a lot of time and effort to make the second amendment fit into their idealogy instead of what the second amendment actually means.
Everallm- I've tried explaining the very point you made to anti's I know, and their response was to cover their ears and go "la la la la la la la" and maybe throw in a few lines about how "the founders could never have envisioned todays weapons" which of course is untrue.
Ya know --- If the antis believe that our Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined what weapons would evolve, one must look back in retrospect and note that many of them saw the evolution of the rifle and pistol from a dream with touch holes, to match locks, and on to flint locks. Before that there was the bow and arrow, sword, spear, rocks, torches and pitchforks. Some lived into the 19th Century and saw revolvers.
Our Founding Fathers also gave us a way to alter the Constitution. If those in the anti-arms-rights crowd don't like the current state of affairs vis-a-vis arms, they can propose to amend the Second Amendment to allow limitations on what we may keep and bear. 'Till they get that done, they need to abide the Constitution as amended, and don't try to goad, beg, worry, and taunt everyone who doesn't believe as they do to ignore the Constitution. If they do succeed in amending the Constitution, they will expect it to be abided as then amended. In the mean time, they need to honor the Constitution as it stands and show everyone else that they do value the Constitution and recognize it for the Supreme Law of the Land that it is. Otherwise, how can they expect the rest of us to believe they'll abide the Constitution as they wish to amend it if they can't or won't abide it as it stands?
Let us all hope that the current crop of Supreme Court justices have the honor to abide the Constitution as it stands, and not parry off into the nether land of verbose misprision. A ruling that will "empower" the Union or the several states to limit or confiscate arms will cost many lives. Standing up for the Constitution will guarantee freedom and bolster the strength of this nation, for who would dare to enslave an armed public!
"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood
One thing I truly believe the founding fathers did not envision is the emergence of career politicians. If they could have foreseen senators and representatives spending 20, 30 and 40 plus years in Washington they most certainly would have given us term limits. The founding fathers would be shaking their heads in disbelief of people like Ted Kennedy who have spent their entire adult lives in the federal government. Lack of term limits is the primary reason the federal government has grown so large and is spinning out of control of the people.
Astute observation, why do you question it?
Not questioning my (somewhat simplistic) thesis, ....just sighing in exasperation and frustration.
The antis are getting desperate.
I just heard on the radio that the DC Million Mom March chapter did one of those "32 lie-ins" within the past hour outside the D.C. Circuit's building, "to protest how easy it is to get a handgun in D.C."
Do you have a link? What radio station did you hear about it?
It is easy I bet... If you are operating as a criminal that is.
I couldn't check the streaming audio link, but it was on the hourly "local news segment" of WAMU, the DC NPR station. http://wamu.org/news/
ETA: it must be a slow news day. They have been repeating the story every hour.
I'd like to see them try to purchase a handgun in D.C. "to protest how easy it is to get a handgun in D.C."
Oh, wait, you can't buy a handgun in DC.........
Anyone have a link to the extension approval?
BTW: per SCOTUSblog, indications are the case may be referred to as Heller instead of Parker (makes sense, as he's the only one with standing at this point; Parker and the rest are out of the appeal process).
Nope, I've only heard of it by way of SCOTUSblog, never seen any reference to the extension anywhere else.
BTW, if that blog has it right, I find this a very troubling development: I've been given to understand that such extensions under these circumstances are pretty much unprecidented, and if the Chief Justice, (Whose vote we need!) is rushing to bend the rules to help DC in this case, we're in trouble.
OTOH, I've also heard from some that these extensions are routinely granted. Anybody know which it is?
Brett, it might just be that the Supremes recognize that this could be a historic case and want both sides to be well prepared, so that later no one could say that there was a lack of parity, thus leaving the issue open.
H'mm with regard to the 30 day extension is this
1. To assist DC (possible but unlikely) or
2. The Supremes are going "Oh poo we need to get some extra time to get research and some consensus underway"
#2 isnt likely, SC Justices do not do their own research, thats what clerks are for.
That was the royal/managerial "we"....
Don't have the document, but found the record thereof.
The SCOTUS docket for Parker is here.
I don't think the ease of the extension signifies any leaning towards D.C. on behalf of the court, rather I imagine they understand the magnitude of the case and would grant either side extra time to prepare to prevent questioning of what will be a far-reaching decision.
“We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city’s residents,” said Mayor Fenty. “Our handgun law has saved countless lives – keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves.”
Wow. Just, wow. You've had some of the strictest gun laws in America for 30 years, AND some of the highest crime rates, including past mayors . That's some good logic there.
Link to Fenty/DC Request for 30 Day Extension
Link to Fenty/DC Request for 30 Day Extension
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Heller applic for time 7-16-07.pdf
'Course, now we have Specter (former Democrat, current RHINO) threatening the new Supreme Court justices with hearings or some such thing because he believes they misled the senators so they would consent to their appointments.
Sounds like political pressure to me - in the face of this Parker case. What do y'all think? I know he's supposed to be against "gun control", but I truly wonder with this latest blurb. Why now? Why not before?
Specter can whine and throw all the tantrums he wants-once Justices are confirmed, Congress can't touch them, unless they want to try to impeach them. And I don't think even Kucinich, McDermott, Jackson-Lee, and Holmes-Norton (impeachment starts in the House, IIRC) are willing to go that far.
I couldn't agree more. Frankly the "couldn't imagine" argument insults the intelligence of the entire man kind for the last 5000 years. The builder of the first stone home couldn't imagine a palace? Since the dawn of time, man dreamed of flying. Then, two brothers come around and build... yea, guess what? An airplane. Don't tell me they didn't imagine Boeing 767 ??? Of course the did. DaVinci imagined flying machines, submarines, and crap load of other stuff, which we now build every day. Didn't Hammurabi dream of better war machines and deadlier warriors? I bet you $100 he did. Monks who spent years rewriting bibles (creating more copies) could't possibly imagine a great bible rewriting machine??? Come on. Didn't people imagine that one day, we will land on the moon? What would I give to ask Copernicus and Isaak Newton that question. Could Einstein imagine the atomic bomb which turns mass into energy? And today, we can certainly imagine better deadlier weapons, space travel, teleporters, flying cars, etc etc etc. The founding fathers were one of the smartest people that ever lived. They had more insight into human nature than half the man and women today. Bogus arguments simply insult every brilliant thinker and inventor who ever lived. Starting from the guy with the first sharp stick in the cave, and ending on Stephen Hawking.
Separate names with a comma.