Drones Tanks, we have no chance.... What liberals say.

[_Darth J]

It has been the cause of untold bloodshed in this country.

How could the Second Amendment have been the cause of untold bloodshed in this country if it was only five years ago the Supreme Court decided it protected an individual right to bear arms, and it didn't mean that in 1791?

[_Darth J]

The “living political community” in Heller consisted of the elected officials, and the electorate, of the District of Columbia.
(from Richard Posner's book review)

The "living political community" in Perry v. Schwarzenegger consisted of the electorate of California.

Therefore, homosexuals are not entitled to equal protection of law.

The "living political community" in Brown v. Board of Education consisted of the Board of Education of the City of Topeka and the people of Kansas.

Therefore, black schoolchildren are not entitled to the same treatment as white schoolchildren.

I like this idea of simultaneously favoring a living constitution and abdicating judicial review. It has a certain refined disingenuousness to it.

[_krose]

Darth, I know I'm not qualified to debate constitutional issues with someone of your legal stature, so I don't intend to try.

As a writer, I do know when a piece of text is so poorly written that it causes confusion and leaves itself open to different interpretations. That's how I see the second amendment.

[Guest]

Darth, I know I'm not qualified to debate constitutional issues with someone of your legal stature, so I don't intend to try.

As a writer, I do know when a piece of text is so poorly written that it causes confusion and leaves itself open to different interpretations. That's how I see the second amendment.

It has nothing to do with qualifications to debate constitutional issues, krose. What's bothering me is what you're saying here means you're okay with result-driven rulings, and that's not the rule of law. It's the rule of judges reading their political value judgments as law.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the"Obamacare" decision. If you read what John Roberts wrote, he intimates pretty clearly that he doesn't like the statute. However, he also upheld it as constitutional and commented on the court's obligation to uphold a law if it plausibly fits within the powers granted to Congress.

If you think the Constitution should be amended to repeal the Second Amendment, that's fine, but almost everything you said suggests you think judges should rule based on their political value judgments about a given issue, and even though that does happen at times, you are not going to want to live in a country where that methodology is taken for granted.

I on the other hand look forward to someday giving a gay couple a gun as a wedding present.

[_krose]

Suck on that, Wayne LaPierre (who claims that simply requiring more background checks is a horrible violation of the sacred amendment) and ldsfax (who claims the sacred amendment is being violated because rights are being "infringed" more every day)!

That's right. Much like every advocate of expansive free speech is a member of NAMBLA and every advocate for marriage equality is hedonistic bathhouse patron who wants to destroy civilization, everyone who thinks Americans have an individual right to possess firearms belongs to the looniest fringe of the NRA.

I'm not seeing how this logically follows. I see where you are coming from with most of the other slams, but not this one. My comment was specifically a criticism of those extremists who claim that any regulation at all is a constitutional infringement.

[_Darth J]

That's right. Much like every advocate of expansive free speech is a member of NAMBLA and every advocate for marriage equality is hedonistic bathhouse patron who wants to destroy civilization, everyone who thinks Americans have an individual right to possess firearms belongs to the looniest fringe of the NRA.

I'm not seeing how this logically follows. I see where you are coming from with most of the other slams, but not this one. My comment was specifically a criticism of those extremists who claim that any regulation at all is a constitutional infringement.

Because the far right tends to use guilt by association to marginalize supporters of any civil rights issue they don't like (i.e., most of them), and what you said kind of looked like you were doing that. Maybe you were not, but taken with your other posts it kind of looked that way.

[_krose]

What's bothering me is what you're saying here means you're okay with result-driven rulings, and that's not the rule of law. It's the rule of judges reading their political value judgments as law.

From my standpoint as a decided non-expert observer of the court, I believe that happens more often than not, which is why I want to see more judges of my own political bent on the bench. It appears to be the way it's done. For example, I don't believe there is any way Bush v. Gore would have been decided the same way had the candidate roles been reversed.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the"Obamacare" decision. If you read what John Roberts wrote, he intimates pretty clearly that he doesn't like the statute. However, he also upheld it as constitutional and commented on the court's obligation to uphold a law if it plausibly fits within the powers granted to Congress.

Couldn't they have done the same thing with the DC gun law (found a plausible way to uphold the statute)?

If you think the Constitution should be amended to repeal the Second Amendment, that's fine, but almost everything you said suggests you think judges should rule based on their political value judgments about a given issue, and even though that does happen at times, you are not going to want to live in a country where that methodology is taken for granted.

I do want to see it repealed, and much of what I said earlier (which may have been accidental originalism) was my attempt to demean and insult the amendment using its own text.

[_Darth J]

What's bothering me is what you're saying here means you're okay with result-driven rulings, and that's not the rule of law. It's the rule of judges reading their political value judgments as law.

From my standpoint as a decided non-expert observer of the court, I believe that happens more often than not, which is why I want to see more judges of my own political bent on the bench. It appears to be the way it's done.

For example, Antonin Scalia dissenting along with Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan this week in Maryland v. King. Or Roberts writing the majority opinion holding that Obamacare is constitutionally permissible.

It might also appear to happen that way because of which cases get mentioned in the news. Five to four decisions are not the usual course of business, even though I just named two 5-4 decisions.

For example, I don't believe there is any way Bush v. Gore would have been decided the same way had the candidate roles been reversed.

That's a problem, but not the ultimate problem. That case should not have been heard by the court at all. Try Googling "bush v. gore justiciable" and you'll see a bunch of law review articles and blogs and whatnot talking about why not.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the"Obamacare" decision. If you read what John Roberts wrote, he intimates pretty clearly that he doesn't like the statute. However, he also upheld it as constitutional and commented on the court's obligation to uphold a law if it plausibly fits within the powers granted to Congress.

Couldn't they have done the same thing with the DC gun law (found a plausible way to uphold the statute)?

Found a way or invented a way? Roberts found a way in Article I of the Constitution: Congress' power to tax. If you are finding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, there isn't a comparable provision somewhere else in the Constitution that allows for de facto deprivations of the Bill of Rights. In other words, if you accept the premise that the Second Amendment provides for individuals having a right to bear arms, that premise is determinative under the facts in Heller (and McDonald).

If you think the Constitution should be amended to repeal the Second Amendment, that's fine, but almost everything you said suggests you think judges should rule based on their political value judgments about a given issue, and even though that does happen at times, you are not going to want to live in a country where that methodology is taken for granted.

I do want to see it repealed, and much of what I said earlier (which may have been accidental originalism) was my attempt to demean and insult the amendment using its own text.

That's fine, but ambiguity is not unique to the Second Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, for example, mentions probable cause but does not explicitly say that is the standard of proof for obtaining a search warrant. And yet somehow we have muddled along for 222 years using probable cause as the standard of proof for issuing a search warrant or for charging someone with a crime.

Well, we used to muddle through. Until the Obama administration started with the Patriot Act's near-repeal of the Fourth Amendment and took it up to eleven.

[_ldsfaqs]

faqs:
Do you use the same abusive, hate-filled, name-calling style when you argue with people face to face? I'm guessing it's just when you are protected by anonymity and distance, which allows cowards to act the part of an abrasive ass without the danger of being punched in the face every day because of calling someone "stupid" or a "moron."

Sadly, I suspect that those who are abusive from a safe distance are also more likely to abuse others who can't fight back, such as children and pets.

This is funny.....

I'm actually responding to YOU people being [personal attack deleted], and you claim "I'm" the one being [deleted]. haa haa

What you've just said I could say and have said about you people.
I'm the one who should be punching you people in the face, which is exactly why I respond the way I do to you people. I'm showing you your scum.

[_ldsfaqs]

I believe the second amendment is the worst, and should be dumped.

Fascists would think that. People who don't think self defense is not a MORAL and INALIENABLE RIGHT are just as bad as a Pedophile.

It has been the cause of untold bloodshed in this country.

Falsehood.

No it hasn't. Bad men have been the cause of "bloodshed".
Further, 99% of the country's that have banned guns have a ZERO decrease in actual DEATH, by murder, and some even remain the same, as well some even have worse violence because only the bad guys have guns.

Also, a hugely conservative number, the use of guns to STOP DEATH and potential death by violent crime is at least about a 100,000 times a year. Now, do you remember the gun death number? I know some banter 2.5 Million, but that's inaccurate.

So, a gun has STOP violent crime FAR MORE than a gun has been used in crime, so how is that a bad thing? Do you believe people should just be victims?

Further, you liberals banned blacks from owning guns, and you cause and did untold numbers of murders and violence against blacks.

Thus, your claim is a complete falsehood according to the facts.

Further, you ignore the fact that guns and weapons bans have caused BILLIONS in Genocides through history. Gun bans alone in just the last 100 years have resulted in multi-millions of deaths by fascists like you.

By the way, do you know why you're a fascist? Because you think "you know better" and you dictate that infringing on individual freedom.

Times change, and some things should change with the times.

The most ignorant quote of the night.
Anyone that knows history knows that "times don't change". History repeats itself.
In fact, this fascist president and other liberal leaders we now have proves unequivocally that we need guns more than ever.

Tell us also.... How have "times changed" that a cop can't yet get to you in 5 Seconds to stop your death from occurring? What "change" are we supposed to be so happy about? Civilized society doesn't completely stop evil, so what's "changed" so much that we can give up personal self defense?

Why is a "woman" not allowed to defend herself from a bigger or multiple attackers?

And since when did the HUMAN RIGHT to self defense is something that's no longer a right and should change?

I do find it interesting that the Cheney-ite neocons who created Iraq's new constitution did not include a right to firearms.

I don't think "we" actually had control of that. And yes, I would agree. I think the military taking peoples guns away in Iraq and Afghanistan was very bad. It also shows that the military can be told to do illegal and immoral things.