Federal judge rules city ban on handgun sales unconstitutional

[MikeE]

Are you on loco weed. No one really gives a rats azz about what "scholar" believes what. That is liberal bull talk. We give a damn about our constitution and 2nd Amendment. What some idiot "scholar" believes is irrelevant totally.
It is people with labels like that that got us to the cockeyed mess were in in this country today. !!!!
Good lord !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The ONLY "scholars"we need are called PATRIOTS. Nothing else matters, except to the liberal self appointed elite.
Who pays you to say this crap ?

The Constitution has been open to interpretation since it was written. Different people see it different ways. To get around this problem, we've evolved a body of court decisions on Constitutional matters. A Constitutional scholar would be someone who is well-versed on these decisions and can make arguments based on precedent. This might not be a perfect way to do things, but it is better than letting some PATRIOT, i.e. some jackass with a gun, decide.

 

[DMax]

The Constitution has been open to interpretation since it was written. Different people see it different ways. To get around this problem, we've evolved a body of court decisions on Constitutional matters. A Constitutional scholar would be someone who is well-versed on these decisions and can make arguments based on precedent. This might not be a perfect way to do things, but it is better than letting some PATRIOT, i.e. some jackass with a gun, decide.

I guess based on your comment in bold that means that George Washington and rest of our founding fathers were just some jackass with a gun. How easy it is for you to forget those Patriot Jackasses died and fought for your right to say stupid stuff.

 

[simon99]

The Constitution has been open to interpretation since it was written. Different people see it different ways. To get around this problem, we've evolved a body of court decisions on Constitutional matters. A Constitutional scholar would be someone who is well-versed on these decisions and can make arguments based on precedent. This might not be a perfect way to do things, but it is better than letting some PATRIOT, i.e. some jackass with a gun, decide.

Isn't Obama considered a "Constitutional Scholar"?

Its amusing to see liberals proclaim that the Constitution is open to interpretation. This type of thinking, where everything is open to interpretation, is the major contributing factor to the mess this Country is in. Precedent means nothing to progressives.....

BTW, those jackasses with guns are the reason you can be on this internet today exercising your 1A rights rather than plowing a field for the Monarchy.

 

[evltwn]

Hey, I'm one of those "jackazzs". No need to thank me. A 4th grader understands 'infringe'. The rest is bending the 2nd A to chip away our rights by those so called scholars.

 

[fd15k]

Isn't Obama considered a "Constitutional Scholar"?

He might be considered by some. When I brought the question up though, I pointed to guys of the Libertarian school of thought. CATO institute and bubblegum.

Its amusing to see liberals proclaim that the Constitution is open to interpretation. This type of thinking, where everything is open to interpretation, is the major contributing factor to the mess this Country is in. Precedent means nothing to progressives.....

I am a Libertarian and I say it is open to the interpretation.

BTW, those jackasses with guns are the reason you can be on this internet today exercising your 1A rights rather than plowing a field for the Monarchy.

It's not enough to learn about the founders from the attractive real (often out of context) and fake quotes circulating on the Internet. They were not
the alike bunch, often disagreeing one with another. Many of them were educated in the prestigious schools and were lawyers and judges. Many established
Universities. Many did not fight any wars. Many of them were what we would call today "scholars". Totally jackasses with guns

 

[1Asterisk]

The Constitution has been open to interpretation since it was written. Different people see it different ways. To get around this problem, we've evolved a body of court decisions on Constitutional matters. A Constitutional scholar would be someone who is well-versed on these decisions and can make arguments based on precedent. This might not be a perfect way to do things, but it is better than letting some PATRIOT, i.e. some jackass with a gun, decide.

I'm a "jackass with a gun" (Patriot). If I understand you correctly from your statement(s), you think I'm too stupid to understand the Constitution. I'm sure you probably think I'm too stupid to understand much of anything because I am, as you said, "some jackass with a gun". That's OK, because I believe you have a constitutional right to your opinion. Gee, if I wasn't so stupid, maybe I wouldn't have spent 31 years defending your right to that opinion. What a waste.....

 

[fd15k]

That's OK, because I believe you have a constitutional right to your opinion.

Constitutional rights don't have effect among individuals. Government can't prosecute him for having an opinion.

Gee, if I wasn't so stupid, maybe I wouldn't have spent 31 years defending your right to that opinion. What a waste.....

Many service members believe that. Whether it is actually true depends on the actions of particular individuals, their units and the
policy makers at the time of their service. As you know, people like Ron Paul advocate for withdrawal of US bases from around
the world, change of foreign policy to reduce military involvement, and reduction of the military in general. Perhaps our rights
aren't in as much danger as some may perceive.

 

[Martini_Up]

It takes time to get issues through the court system, but eventually all unreasonable regulation will be struck down.

Like the 'sporting purposes' clause in the Gun Control Act of 1968? Or the NFA of 1934?

I guess time will tell... but my time on this Earth is finite, unlike time.

 

[fd15k]

Like the 'sporting purposes' clause in the Gun Control Act of 1968? Or the NFA of 1934?

I guess time will tell... but my time on this Earth is finite, unlike time.

I personally don't think 'sporting purposes' can be overturned through the courts, but I have have not heard of the discussions
regarding that part of GCA among the litigators either. Perhaps it is just not a high priority.

For NFA there seems to be an agreement that it won't be possible to overturn it through courts. It has to be a legislative
effort.

 

[Trlsmn]

A Constitutional scholar would be someone who is well-versed on these decisions and can make arguments based on precedent. This might not be a perfect way to do things, but it is better than letting some PATRIOT, i.e. some jackass with a gun degree and a biased agenda, decide.

I changed some wording of your post, not as any judgement of your version but to highlight that my version can be just as accurate to reality, ye but dare I say my version is actually how it happens. ;-)

 

[Trlsmn]

Many of them were what we would call today "scholars". Totally jackasses Scholars with guns

To start with take out the word "Jackasses", that word implies every gun owner understanding his 2nd amendment rights is a jackass, perhaps the founding fathers were scholars and gun owners, jackasses too for that matter? Perhaps a man can understand all the information that a scholar with a degree has read and not have a degree? A degree does not in itself guarantee competence, nor does a position in itself a guarantee of competence.

Scholars and non scholars use the same organic computer, thus a man without a degree (but with the necessary intelligence) is just as capable as a scholar to come to a conclusion given the same information input. A degree is not a trump card, it does not in itself become the true answer to a question

 

[MikeE]

Isn't Obama considered a "Constitutional Scholar"?

Its amusing to see liberals proclaim that the Constitution is open to interpretation. This type of thinking, where everything is open to interpretation, is the major contributing factor to the mess this Country is in. Precedent means nothing to progressives.....

BTW, those jackasses with guns are the reason you can be on this internet today exercising your 1A rights rather than plowing a field for the Monarchy.

No, the Constitution has been subject to interpretation since the early 1800's, when the Supreme Court ruled that it had the power to throw out laws it deemed unconstitutional in Marbury vs Madison:
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1859, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fugitive slave act - that was overturned when slavery was abolished.
The Civil war was about different readings of the US Constitution.

 

[MikeE]

[/B]

I guess based on your comment in bold that means that George Washington and rest of our founding fathers were just some jackass with a gun. How easy it is for you to forget those Patriot Jackasses died and fought for your right to say stupid stuff.

And Washington and compatriots wrote the Constitution in an effort to avoid going through the same bloody mess again. And still the wheels fell off in 1860 when the epitome of jackasses with guns fired on Fort Sumter, starting a civil war that got a million Americans killed, and the South destroyed. Since then, although we have had some terrible, unconstitutional laws, like racial segregation, we have managed to find ways to change the system without taking up arms against each other.
My comments are not about the military people who serve and sacrifice under the US Constitution.

 

[DMax]

And Washington and compatriots wrote the Constitution in an effort to avoid going through the same bloody mess again. And still the wheels fell off in 1860 when the epitome of jackasses with guns fired on Fort Sumter, starting a civil war that got a million Americans killed, and the South destroyed. Since then, although we have had some terrible, unconstitutional laws, like racial segregation, we have managed to find ways to change the system without taking up arms against each other.
My comments are not about the military people who serve and sacrifice under the US Constitution.

If you really think there is a talking solution to tranny then go ahead and get the debate and sollution started after all your side is so easy to talk to and with, especially when it comes to the freedoms and rights of the individual. Go ahead we will wait! I'm starting the popcorn for this one.

 

[fd15k]

To start with take out the word "Jackasses", that word implies every gun owner understanding his 2nd amendment rights is a jackass, perhaps the founding fathers were scholars and gun owners, jackasses too for that matter? Perhaps a man can understand all the information that a scholar with a degree has read and not have a degree? A degree does not in itself guarantee competence, nor does a position in itself a guarantee of competence.

Scholars and non scholars use the same organic computer, thus a man without a degree (but with the necessary intelligence) is just as capable as a scholar to come to a conclusion given the same information input. A degree is not a trump card, it does not in itself become the true answer to a question

Anyone with a certain level of intelligence can become a scholar, but not everyone dedicates their life to such cause.
This country is not about a single document. What we have today is a product of 200 years of various events and developments.
Unless one spends a significant amount of time learning and understanding those events, there is a high probability their
conclusions will not be accurate, especially if they are narrowly looking at a single piece of the puzzle.

Good luck to those gun owners understanding their rights based on a single line of text written 200 years ago. Certainly
they are not on the same page with the SAF and the NRA on that topic. But what do I know, SAF and NRA could be wrong
too.

 

[41Slinger]

Anyone with a certain level of intelligence can become a scholar, but not everyone dedicates their life to such cause.
This country is not about a single document. What we have today is a product of 200 years of various events and developments.
Unless one spends a significant amount of time learning and understanding those events, there is a high probability their
conclusions will not be accurate, especially if they are narrowly looking at a single piece of the puzzle.

Good luck to those gun owners understanding their rights based on a single line of text written 200 years ago. Certainly
they are not on the same page with the SAF and the NRA on that topic. But what do I know, SAF and NRA could be wrong
too.

This tells me all I need to know about fd15k.

 

[Dave Workman]

Truth in numbers: Illinois citizens want to be armed

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is having a bad week....

<broken link removed>

 

[1Asterisk]

Constitutional rights don't have effect among individuals.

That's true but it doesn't make it any less of a waste...

Government can't prosecute him for having an opinion.

Sure they can. If you have the platform and the audience. If you become a thorn in the side of the govenment. One might not be charged specifically with 'Unlawfully Expressing a Differing Opinion', but some other violation, civil or criminal, could easily be found and brought to bear to prosecute, or persecute, should a government choose to do so.

Many service members believe that. Whether it is actually true depends on the actions of particular individuals, their units and the
policy makers at the time of their service.

Military personnel are not the only persons required to swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Many in law enforcement do. Some political figures also. Contrary to your belief, it does not matter that they ever actually have to put themselves in harms way to defend your constitutional rights. What matters is that for those in the military and LE, from the moment they give that oath they know that someday they could be called upon to put their life on the line to defend your rights.

As you know, people like Ron Paul advocate for withdrawal of US bases from around
the world, change of foreign policy to reduce military involvement, and reduction of the military in general. Perhaps our rights
aren't in as much danger as some may perceive.

I'm a conservative, not libertarian. What Ron Paul thinks matters little to me.

 

[fd15k]

Military personnel are not the only persons required to swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Many in law enforcement do. Some political figures also. Contrary to your belief, it does not matter that they ever actually have to put themselves in harms way to defend your constitutional rights. What matters is that for those in the military and LE, from the moment they give that oath they know that someday they could be called upon to put their life on the line to defend your rights.

I took an oath too, and so far I haven't done bubblegum (if you exclude some pro-gun activism) to protect anyone's rights. Actions matter, not symbolism.

 

[cookie]

It takes time to get issues through the court system, but eventually all unreasonable regulation will be struck down.

......It takes time to get issues through the court system, but eventually all unreasonable regulation [hopefully] will be struck down.