8 new gun control bills introduced yesterday

[fd15k]

HAHAHA..no. The problem is the government has lost its way in my opinion. Yes, with judges included. The government is supposed to be working for The People not for themselves.

Hence, 8 new gun control bills introduced. Are they for the rights of the people or for more power to regulate the people for the government?

It's very simple. You have those elected legislators introducing some bills. If the people don't like those bills, they should recall them. Since they don't recall them, that means people support the bills, or don't care. Where is the problem ?

 

[fd15k]

Are the people once again gonna let the government decide what is best for them even though the people disagree... Obamacare and the unconstitutional decision to agree with Obama by the supreme court judges.

Circular reasoning again ? And I am the stupid one...

 

[Father of four]

Not once did I say you are stupid. I actually think you are smarter then me. We seem to have the inability to see eye to eye.

 

[fd15k]

Well, here is a video clip starring one of our Supreme Court Justices that disagrees with that statement.

Yes, glass half full and half empty. Sure their decisions carry weight of law. Sure they have great impact. Sure they have power to strike down laws passed by the legislatures. Nonetheless, it's all done within a framework, and without ability just to come up with arbitrary bubblegum whenever they feel like it.

 

[Father of four]

I guess you could say I am using my circular reasoning. I see and believe what I do. I am open to changing my mind. I admit that I do not know everything and that I am not right in everything. But I do have my opinions.

 

[Father of four]

Well, here is a video clip starring one of our Supreme Court Justices that disagrees with that statement.

YouTube

Your link will not let me watch the video.

 

[DonovanJay]

...

 

[novamind]

Do not believe that this or that can not be done. The true colors of many in Government are showing for what they really are. A battle between Good and Evil as always is on.

 

[Karma]

Your link will not let me watch the video.

Here it is again. This attitude scars the hell out of me.

Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor advocates legislating from the bench - YouTube

 

[bigboy67]

Does anyone think that the Repubs, after getting spanked and pushed around over the last year, will dig their heels in and stomp out any 2A attacks? I do. It's kind of the last value they can really point to as something they stand for, without it what do they have left?

Last I checked Pubs are the majority and can squash any legislature they want, what am I missing?

(By the way, I don't say "they" because I'm a Dem, I just don't identify with any of those scumbags)

 

[fd15k]

Here it is again. This attitude scars the hell out of me.

Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor advocates legislating from the bench - YouTube

That's a lot of reading between the lines, especially since it's cut out of obviously a longer press conference, so no context is present.

 

[Father of four]

Here is a longer version of that video.

<broken link removed>

 

[trainsktg]

Does anyone think that the Repubs, after getting spanked and pushed around over the last year, will dig their heels in and stomp out any 2A attacks? I do. It's kind of the last value they can really point to as something they stand for, without it what do they have left?

Last I checked Pubs are the majority and can squash any legislature they want, what am I missing?

(By the way, I don't say "they" because I'm a Dem, I just don't identify with any of those scumbags)

Actually you are missing nothing. The Republicans have held the House for roughly 16 of the last 18 years. All spending originates in the House, and in an effort to get various groups to 'like them', they've compromised the supposed principles that their party stands for. Regarding our current $16T debt for example, although people like to blame Bush for the first TARP, Medicare Part D, etc and Obama for Obamacare and the absurd amount of time that Unemployment benefits are now paid among others, in reality the Republicans in the House are the only ones who could approve or halt such spending. The financial mess we are now seeing is directly their responsibility, and IMO there is nothing that can be done until, like every other bubble in history, the US Government's own Debt Bubble collapses, most likely violently, apon itself.

Keith

 

[fd15k]

Here is a longer version of that video.

<broken link removed>

Yeah, and seconds later, after the sarcastic remarks, she clarifies that court of appeals is where interpretation and application of law is done. Which is exactly how it is. "Making policy" was just poor choice of wording, "clarification of policy" was what she was talking about.

 

[PMKN_PI]

Yeah, and seconds later, after the sarcastic remarks, she clarifies that court of appeals is where interpretation and application of law is done. Which is exactly how it is. "Making policy" was just poor choice of wording, "clarification of policy" was what she was talking about.

uh huh. Sure. I love the 'clarifications' when they get their asses exposed. happens every time.

 

[brianjcuw]

Does anyone think that the Repubs, after getting spanked and pushed around over the last year, will dig their heels in and stomp out any 2A attacks? I do. It's kind of the last value they can really point to as something they stand for, without it what do they have left?

Last I checked Pubs are the majority and can squash any legislature they want, what am I missing?

(By the way, I don't say "they" because I'm a Dem, I just don't identify with any of those scumbags)

It would depend how much they can gain politically from an individual or party standpoint. Of the two major parties currently representing the majority of the US they are easily more fractured at this moment. Plus I think Bohner not supporting relief efforts for the northeast may hurt efforts to keep the republicans from those states on the same page on this issue.

 

[Brown Trout]

because...

That is incorrect.

Originally Bill of Rights, including Second Amendment, was a restraint against the Federal Government only. As such, regardless of what the meaning of the Amendment was (individual vs militia, etc), it did not restraint states and municipal governments. So if a city wanted to ban firearm ownership and/or carry, there were no barriers for that except possibly for the state constitution of where the city was located.

When the 14th Amendment was passed, restraints in the Bill of Rights were extended to the state and local governments as well. So at that point the interpretation of the Amendment would matter, dictating whether certain prohibitions are allowed or disallowed. Unfortunately shortly after its passage, 14th Amendment was crippled by the Supreme Court decision in the Slaughterhouse cases. Which removed the restraints in the Bill of Rights from the states and local governments.

After that individual amendments were extended to apply to the states and local governments on a case by case basis. Second Amendment was the last one not to be extended. So until 2008's decision, there was no Second Amendment restraint against city of Chicago, thus a ban on handguns was not in the violation of the Constitution.

ok ?

When the 14th amendment was drafted it was not meant to be extended to the states, it was meant to ensure the protection of a certain set of rights to new black citizens. Obviously that can be debated now as it was then, but comments by Bingham show that was not his intent.

Fortunately, shortly after it's passage, the Supreme Court confirmed that in the Slaughterhouse case. It was a big win for limiting the Federal government, and bolstering the States rights, something that was not only intended, but cherished by the ratifiers of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights that has been granted to us by any government, and it was not directed at the States. We would do well to quit thinking in those terms.

 

[pyromancer]

I'm just gona leave this here. :winkkiss:

 

[fd15k]

When the 14th amendment was drafted it was not meant to be extended to the states, it was meant to ensure the protection of a certain set of rights to new black citizens. Obviously that can be debated now as it was then, but comments by Bingham show that was not his intent.

Fortunately, shortly after it's passage, the Supreme Court confirmed that in the Slaughterhouse case. It was a big win for limiting the Federal government, and bolstering the States rights, something that was not only intended, but cherished by the ratifiers of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights that has been granted to us by any government, and it was not directed at the States. We would do well to quit thinking in those terms.

Haha, you're funny. I won't comment though

 

[Father of four]

"Supreme Court Rules for Gun Rights (June 26, 2008): The Supreme Court rules, 5&#8211;4, that the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a gun, but insists that the ruling "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."


I wonder how divided the next coming decisions will be regrading Our 2nd Amendment rights. 5-4 again?

5 supreme court judges to say the new laws are constitutional or 5 supreme court judges to says that the new laws are not constitutional?

Even with the supremes...majority rules?

We mere citizens are not entitled to make those decisions? The fate of us millions and Our rights are left up to 5?

I really do not think that is what the founding fathers meant to happen. Instead of one King George...now we have 5?

So The People will wait to see and let their rights be once again decided against them?