High court to define if gun rights apply to states

[Father of four]

Do you think its the right of the people to throw down a corrupt government and start over? Do you think WE THE PEOPLE need to ask the government if we can start it over?

 

[Father of four]

OK uhhh let me uhhh guess..
hmm elected means they were uhh voted in? yeah

Now for that ummm harder word... Appointtted. yeah I guess it means someone who had the authority gave that person permission? yeah

 

[chris61182]

Do you think its the right of the people to throw down a corrupt government and start over? Do you think WE THE PEOPLE need to ask the government if we can start it over?

Man you're all over the place and can't stay on point. Yes, the people have the duty to throw off a corrupt government, much like the government has the duty to tell the majority no when they demand the minorities' rights be trampled.

And when the people throw down a corrupt government who elected them to do so? Or are they simply assuming power, much like the provincial congresses did?

 

[Father of four]

I already said I was ignorant and an idiot. But that doesn't change the fact that freedom belongs to the people first. And if WE THE PEOPLE don't like the laws or the government we can start over. I think I read that somewhere...

 

[chris61182]

OK uhhh let me uhhh guess..
hmm elected means they were uhh voted in? yeah

Now for that ummm harder word... Appointtted. yeah I guess it means someone who had the authority gave that person permission? yeah

So let's see, governing councils appointed by the king (not elections), king disbands councils (not a popular recall), governing councils convene anyways (assuming power = no election), governing councils call themselves provincial congresses and appoint representatives to the continental congresses (not elected).

Yup, clearly "The People" being represented by popular vote.

 

[chris61182]

But that doesn't change the fact that freedom belongs to the people first.

But you have to acknowledge there are limitations to that, you have no freedom to lord over another person, if you did there's no freedom anymore and it turns into an ugly catch-22.

 

[Father of four]

Ok then what do you think should be done about the government taking away or freedoms and rights and passing unconstitutional laws? And with this new Supreme Court ruling, do you think that a few justices should have sway over the whole nation?

 

[haythrower]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I have seen many a "sure thing" go south before.

Totally agree with that. Anytime the courts are involved you are at risk. Maybe this time it will work out favorably, but don't be surprised if we are left with a less than useful decision.

 

[Father of four]

True but in this country we have the ability to vote on a topic. If passed it may be barbaric to some or even alot but that is what happens with a vote. If the vote is decided by the people then what right does any single person or a few decide contrary to what has been voted on.

 

[haythrower]

True but in this country we have the ability to vote on a topic. If passed it may be barbaric to some or even alot but that is what happens with a vote. If the vote is decided by the people then what right does any single person or a few decide contrary to what has been voted on.

You don't live in WA I see. Here the legislature and the Gov decided to overturn the people's will in I960 (2/3 majority to pass new taxes). Very emotional thing here, but they did it citing emergency financial conditions. We should never assume anything, nor take anything for granted.

 

[chris61182]

Ok then what do you think should be done about the government taking away or freedoms and rights and passing unconstitutional laws? And with this new Supreme Court ruling, do you think that a few justices should have sway over the whole nation?

Alright, now that is an excellent set of questions . If only there were some good answers.

True but in this country we have the ability to vote on a topic.

So I thought I saw you hinting at this, but you do understand we never vote on Federal level issues right? And some states like Illinois don't vote on state level issues either?

If the vote is decided by the people then what right does any single person or a few decide contrary to what has been voted on.

Justice and freedom is what right they have, and when that is going to be infringed by the majority it is the government's duty to intervene.

Of course a government powerful enough to do that is also powerful enough to force their own views of things.

 

[Father of four]

Why o why do the people just let them do that? Is that what this was made for? Is that what lots of American are dying for? The few people making choices for the many. Sounds like a dictatorship.

 

[haythrower]

Why o why do the people just let them do that? Is that what this was made for? Is that what lots of American are dying for? The few people making choices for the many. Sounds like a dictatorship.

It all boils down to numbers. For WA, more democrats than republicans and a democrat Gov. The only way to win is more numbers in your favor. But WA is sort of like OR in that the cities determine the politcal makeup of the legislature over the out lying areas. Liberal cities with higher population win out over conservative rural areas with lower population.

 

[Father of four]

So I thought I saw you hinting at this, but you do understand we never vote on Federal level issues right? And some states like Illinois don't vote on state level issues either?

Well I have heard of lots of federal and state laws passed without the people consent. And knowingly against them.

Justice and freedom is what right they have, and when that is going to be infringed by the majority it is the government's duty to intervene.
/QUOTE]

Yeah Justice and freedom from whos point of view.

 

[Father of four]

So haythrower... mob rules in WA?

 

[Father of four]

Sorry chris61182..I messed up on the quote thingy.

Just showing my ignorance.

 

[haythrower]

So haythrower... mob rules in WA?

No, but it will be interesting to see how the state will vote this Nov as most of the legislature is up for election. Nov is a long way off, but I think there will be some change - maybe not enough though. People here are really upset.

 

[chris61182]

So I thought I saw you hinting at this, but you do understand we never vote on Federal level issues right? And some states like Illinois don't vote on state level issues either?

Well I have heard of lots of federal and state laws passed without the people consent. And knowingly against them.

Justice and freedom is what right they have, and when that is going to be infringed by the majority it is the government's duty to intervene.

Yeah Justice and freedom from whos point of view.

Of the individual, it matters not whether they're in the majority or minority. You can't take THEIR freedom away as that would be an injustice.

Not to mention takes you down the path of your own freedom being meaningless because there will be another majority who dislikes a piece of YOUR freedom and will take it away.

 

[Father of four]

Well back to the thread at hand...High court to define if gun rights apply to states.
I for one do not like it how one set of justices can have one ruling on a certain case and then years later another set of justices decide differently.

I think it should be the people decision! A mob rules vote!

 

[Father of four]

I feel like LOTS of my freedoms have already been stolen from me. I am barely starting to understand how everything works and deciding where I stand. This is not how freedom is supposed to be in America. I am sure of it.