McDonald for Dummies... - Page 3
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: McDonald for Dummies...

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    The anticipated favorable decision in Mcdonald may not be the slam dunk we were expecting:

    History reveals a long-standing local authority to regulate guns. Shouldn't that matter?

    Here is the executive summary of the article:

    The problem for Scalia, and for those who want to expand gun rights and also stay faithful to the history and text of the Constitution, is that this view cannot be reconciled with the history of the 14th Amendment. In the years before and after the adoption of the amendment, numerous states and cities—motivated by the danger posed as firearms and other deadly weapons became smaller—enacted laws banning the carrying and possession of certain dangerous weapons, including handguns. In other words, there is ample historical evidence showing that at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, states had broad authority to enact nondiscriminatory gun-safety regulations.

    As John Bingham, the leading drafter of the 14th Amendment, wrote in an 1867 speech, the new Amendment "would maintain intact the powers of the national government and State governments—the one for general defense and protection, the other for local administration and personal security." The 14th Amendment prevented states from discriminating against the rights of certain classes of people, but states could (and did) continue to enact neutral laws banning classes of weapons. Although Justice Scalia did not appear to be interested in this history, there's no reason the rest of the court can't become Originalists this time around.
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL.,:
    Petitioners:
    v.:
    No. 08-1521
    CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL. :
    Washington, D.C. Tuesday, March 2, 2010...

    MR. GURA: Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional...

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: ... because of its fundamental character, the right to bear arms must be understood as separate from the qualifying phrase of the militia clause, all people, most people in the United States, the public meaning of the Second Amendment was that there was an individual right to bear arms, and that's because it was fundamental. If it's not fundamental, then Heller is wrong, it seems to me...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    I have said before: Some people shouldn't have guns. Some people also shouldn't have driver's licenses, or be allowed to vote, or be allowed to procreate! But it's the problem of "Who Gets to Decide" that's important. Nogods, maybe you like a fast car and you want a Porsche. Well the speed limits in America, by and large, are 55mph and below, so you don't need one. Besides, more people are killed in car accidents every year than by guns, so driving fast cars fast is very dangerous...and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. And if the majority of people decided that that was a sensible approach to the highway traffic death problem, that's where we'd be. No one should be in a position to decide what the rest of America should be doing...or not allowed to do...based upon arbitrary rules determined by people with an agenda. Like the Country & Western song says, "Don't 'should' on me and I won't 'should' on you."

    I would also point out that it's precisely because a gun " can be a much more dangerous weapon than a a baseball bat, a kitchen kinfe, an automobile, a chain saw, etc. etc." that it makes such an important and significant DEfensive weapon!
    We, the People of the United Stats get to decide. That is the political process. A majority of people do decide such things. The bill of rights are just 10 amendments to the constitution approved by a majority. they exist because of the political process.

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    We, the People of the United Stats get to decide. That is the political process. A majority of people do decide such things. The bill of rights are just 10 amendments to the constitution approved by a majority. they exist because of the political process.
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL.,:
    Petitioners:
    v.:
    No. 08-1521
    CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL. :
    Washington, D.C. Tuesday, March 2, 2010...

    MR. CLEMENT: The Second Amendment, like the First and the Fourth, protects a fundamental preexisting right that is guaranteed to the people...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #24
    Wow...although I by no means consider myself a Constitutional scholar, some people have NO CLUE.

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Wow...although I by no means consider myself a Constitutional scholar, some people have NO CLUE.
    Yes, it is amazing how many people don't know that the Bill of Rights represent the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, that the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, and that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified by 3/4th vote of the States on December 15, 1791. Many people think the Bill of Rights were part of the original Constitution. But I guess that can be expected when people get their Constitutional scholarship from a guitar player.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Yes, it is amazing how many people don't know that the Bill of Rights represent the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, that the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, and that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified by 3/4th vote of the States on December 15, 1791. Many people think the Bill of Rights were part of the original Constitution. But I guess that can be expected when people get their Constitutional scholarship from a guitar player.
    Nice try...

    Repeal 18 USC 922(o)

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
    By Stewart Rhodes (Retired Army Ranger, Yale Educated Attorney & Noted Scholar on the Constitution & Second Amendment and founder of OathKeepers):

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
    by J. Neil Schulman:

    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/pres...homasjefferson

    http://www.monticello.org/

    (David Kopel) Amicus Brief in Mcdonald v. Chicago: On Behalf of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, et al :
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1511425

    Gun Owners of America Amicus Brief in McDonald v. Chicago...
    http://www.gunowners.com/mcdonald.htm

    http://www.gunowners.com/GOF-McDonald-Amicus-Brief3.pdf



    The following article appeared in the USA TODAY on March 3, 2010
    Opposing view: Gun controls cost lives
    It's unconstitutional to enact restrictions on law-abiding people
    By Erich Pratt
    Chicago resident Ronyale White called 911 four times in 2002 when her estranged husband was trying to kill her. When the police finally arrived, they found this mother of three dead on the floor--a mute testimony to the failure of gun control.
    That same, tragic story has been repeated many times over in a city that frequently competes for the title of being the nation's murder capital. But all that could end if the Supreme Court rules against Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago.
    Gun Owners of America hopes this will be the case.

    Support for gun control is at its lowest level in recent memory, according to the latest polls. But gun control supporters -- like those at USA TODAY -- want to walk a tightrope, claiming that Americans can enjoy the right to keep and bear arms while being subjected to "reasonable" gun controls. That's like saying that African Americans in the 1950s could enjoy the right to vote--as long as they paid a little old poll tax.
    The fact is, a right delayed is a right denied. And those denials have cost people their lives. Thousands of Ronyale Whites have suffered because their gun rights were denied to them. Yet the Second Amendment says nothing of "reasonable" gun control.
    What it does say is that our gun rights "shall not be infringed." Translation: It is constitutionally invalid to enact any bans, licensing requirements or carry restrictions on law-abiding persons who simply want to protect themselves and their families.
    Every day, armed gun owners successfully defend their lives all across the country. Recently, a store owner in Louisiana shot and killed an attacker who jumped him in the parking lot; a thug was fatally shot in Kansas after assaulting a man at a car wash; and in Arizona, a gun owner defended himself against four attackers who police said were beating him with a baseball bat.
    Without the right to carry firearms away from home, all of these cases would have turned out differently.
    Guns save lives -- the lives of the law-abiding.
    Erich Pratt is the director of communications for Gun Owners of America.

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Nice try...

    Repeal 18 USC 922(o)

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
    By Stewart Rhodes (Retired Army Ranger, Yale Educated Attorney & Noted Scholar on the Constitution & Second Amendment and founder of OathKeepers):

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
    by J. Neil Schulman:

    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Thomas Jefferson | The White House

    Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

    (David Kopel) Amicus Brief in Mcdonald v. Chicago: On Behalf of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, et al :
    SSRN-Amicus Brief in Mcdonald v. Chicago: On Behalf of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, et al by David Kopel

    Gun Owners of America Amicus Brief in McDonald v. Chicago...
    Mcdonald v Chicago Litigation

    http://www.gunowners.com/GOF-McDonald-Amicus-Brief3.pdf



    The following article appeared in the USA TODAY on March 3, 2010
    Opposing view: Gun controls cost lives
    It's unconstitutional to enact restrictions on law-abiding people
    By Erich Pratt
    Chicago resident Ronyale White called 911 four times in 2002 when her estranged husband was trying to kill her. When the police finally arrived, they found this mother of three dead on the floor--a mute testimony to the failure of gun control.
    That same, tragic story has been repeated many times over in a city that frequently competes for the title of being the nation's murder capital. But all that could end if the Supreme Court rules against Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago.
    Gun Owners of America hopes this will be the case.

    Support for gun control is at its lowest level in recent memory, according to the latest polls. But gun control supporters -- like those at USA TODAY -- want to walk a tightrope, claiming that Americans can enjoy the right to keep and bear arms while being subjected to "reasonable" gun controls. That's like saying that African Americans in the 1950s could enjoy the right to vote--as long as they paid a little old poll tax.
    The fact is, a right delayed is a right denied. And those denials have cost people their lives. Thousands of Ronyale Whites have suffered because their gun rights were denied to them. Yet the Second Amendment says nothing of "reasonable" gun control.
    What it does say is that our gun rights "shall not be infringed." Translation: It is constitutionally invalid to enact any bans, licensing requirements or carry restrictions on law-abiding persons who simply want to protect themselves and their families.
    Every day, armed gun owners successfully defend their lives all across the country. Recently, a store owner in Louisiana shot and killed an attacker who jumped him in the parking lot; a thug was fatally shot in Kansas after assaulting a man at a car wash; and in Arizona, a gun owner defended himself against four attackers who police said were beating him with a baseball bat.
    Without the right to carry firearms away from home, all of these cases would have turned out differently.
    Guns save lives -- the lives of the law-abiding.
    Erich Pratt is the director of communications for Gun Owners of America.

    +1. The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government

    This of course is a no brainer or at least you would think so.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

    And that is the reason the founding fathers in their wisdom added the 2nd Amendment.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    +1. The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government

    This of course is a no brainer or at least you would think so.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

    And that is the reason the founding fathers in their wisdom added the 2nd Amendment.
    The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The United States is founded upon the Constitution.

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    The United States is founded upon the Constitution.
    Exactly! And the Constitution says "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

  11. #30
    It always amazes me that ignorant people never can grasp the concept that you can get a pretty good idea what was the original intent in the constitution by reading other writings of the founding fathers including but not limited to the Declaration of Independence. In fact most liberals do not care about original intent because they have some misguided belief in what they call a living, breathing document. I have come to the conclusion there are some people that would argue with a rock just to argue. You can not fix stupid. Actually America was not founded on the Constitution, it did not precede America, but rather on Judeo/Christian principles.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 11:19 PM
  2. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago
    By lukem in forum Illinois Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 01:27 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2010, 11:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast