I Feel Better About Living in Texas
-
They join Wyoming in a definitive effort to invalidate unconstitutional laws: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
They join Wyoming in a definitive effort to invalidate unconstitutional laws: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997Everytime you tell that it's good for you to live in Texas you really make me happy. :-\
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Everytime you tell that it's good for you to live in Texas you really make me happy. :-\
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
reilly96 wrote:
pompous ass
Does his accent quote Proust at you?
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
They join Wyoming in a definitive effort to invalidate unconstitutional laws: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Except limiting types of firearms is not unconstitutional, at least according to the Supreme Court.
Depends on who you ask, and the SCOTUS is a political body (as opposed to its intended duty as a judicial body). Limiting types of firearms IS unconstitutional.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Depends on who you ask, and the SCOTUS is a political body (as opposed to its intended duty as a judicial body). Limiting types of firearms IS unconstitutional.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997Well, since it was in 2008 when the judgement was made and Scalia was the one who wrote the opinion about it, I would tend to follow the constitution and say that the highest judicial body in the land does get the final say on what is and is not constitutional. Also, if you want to say that it is a political body, it would currently be a right leaning political body due to the views of who is sitting on it, and it certainly was leaning conservative when this decision was issued in 2008.
-
Well, since it was in 2008 when the judgement was made and Scalia was the one who wrote the opinion about it, I would tend to follow the constitution and say that the highest judicial body in the land does get the final say on what is and is not constitutional. Also, if you want to say that it is a political body, it would currently be a right leaning political body due to the views of who is sitting on it, and it certainly was leaning conservative when this decision was issued in 2008.
If its members are selected by politicians, it's only because said politicians want a court that will vote their way. IMHO, the only loyalty a supreme court judge should have is to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the most part, shall not be infringed." There are no riders, conditions, or exceptions. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee that the people will be on equal footing with any adversary that might present itself. On order to be on that equal footing, every sort of arms wielded by the military (or police) should also be available for the people to keep and bear. Given the cost of the more destructive stuff, not many people (if any at all) would be walking around with RPGs, or gatling guns bolted to the roof of their pickups, etc. I'm satisfied with what I have (and wasn't part of the recent panic buying spree we witnessed over the last month). I was mildly concerned that I wouldn't be able to get replacement parts, but now that the panic has subsided, I'm sure it won't be a problem.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
If its members are selected by politicians, it's only because said politicians want a court that will vote their way. IMHO, the only loyalty a supreme court judge should have is to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the most part, shall not be infringed." There are no riders, conditions, or exceptions. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee that the people will be on equal footing with any adversary that might present itself. On order to be on that equal footing, every sort of arms wielded by the military (or police) should also be available for the people to keep and bear. Given the cost of the more destructive stuff, not many people (if any at all) would be walking around with RPGs, or gatling guns bolted to the roof of their pickups, etc. I'm satisfied with what I have (and wasn't part of the recent panic buying spree we witnessed over the last month). I was mildly concerned that I wouldn't be able to get replacement parts, but now that the panic has subsided, I'm sure it won't be a problem.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997I just want to point out that in most parts of the world (read: anywhere frequented by the USSR), RPGs are actually quite affordable, ranging from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand depending on the area (or less if you steal them from a stockpile instead of buying from someone who did). Yes, it is certainly expensive ammunition, but not prohibitively so, and I know lots of people who have spent more on sillier things (the missus and her Coach purse collection come to mind).
-
Depends on who you ask, and the SCOTUS is a political body (as opposed to its intended duty as a judicial body). Limiting types of firearms IS unconstitutional.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Depends on who you ask
In the US the people to ask is the Supreme Court.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
and the SCOTUS is a political body (as opposed to its intended duty as a judicial body).
Which is an opinion and has nothing to do with legality nor the nature of the US government. Not to mention of course that the Supreme court has probably never issued a ruling that someone didn't like. As an example of that if that wasn't the case then "Loving vs Virginia" would have never made it to the Supreme Court because West Virginia would have seen the error of their ways and not presued it. And the judges wouldn't have ruled against Loving in the first place.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Limiting types of firearms IS unconstitutional.
Nonsense. The US does now, and always has since the very founding, recognized the need to place limits on rights. Rights are not now and never have been an absolute.
-
They join Wyoming in a definitive effort to invalidate unconstitutional laws: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507[^]
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
If its members are selected by politicians, it's only because said politicians want a court that will vote their way. IMHO, the only loyalty a supreme court judge should have is to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the most part, shall not be infringed." There are no riders, conditions, or exceptions. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee that the people will be on equal footing with any adversary that might present itself. On order to be on that equal footing, every sort of arms wielded by the military (or police) should also be available for the people to keep and bear. Given the cost of the more destructive stuff, not many people (if any at all) would be walking around with RPGs, or gatling guns bolted to the roof of their pickups, etc. I'm satisfied with what I have (and wasn't part of the recent panic buying spree we witnessed over the last month). I was mildly concerned that I wouldn't be able to get replacement parts, but now that the panic has subsided, I'm sure it won't be a problem.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If its members are selected by politicians, it's only because said politicians want a court that will vote their way.
Could be but that is the way it is done. And since, at least last time I checked, Supreme Court justices are human that means they will always have opinions.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
IMHO, the only loyalty a supreme court judge should have is to the Constitution.
I am rather certain, IMHO, that you would be hard pressed to find an Supreme Court Justice stating that their ruling was based on anything but that. And certainly not in the last 50 years. Of course that doesn't mean that they must rule in a way that you find favorable. But you might note as well that it is up to the citizens of the US to take an active role in their own governance and this includes them challenging those laws that they find/think are unfair. The Supreme Court does not and cannot go actively looking for unconstitutional areas to explore. Someone must bring it to them first. The US political process is a participant sport not a spectator one. (And as examples of that, that is exactly the problem with Chicago and Washington DC laws in which it took activitists years to find anyone willing to challenge the laws.)
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the most part, shall not be infringed."
Which would be meaningful if if that was the sole and only thing that the US was built upon. But it isn't. And the founding fathers knew it. As such they and those since then recognize that rights are not absolute. Every right has limits.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
There are no riders, conditions, or exceptions.
You are wrong. The founding fathers recognized that a nation which consist of people (which is a plural) must seek compromises to allow for the nation to exist and continue to exist. There are no absolutes. Not now and not ever.
