It's the Guns.

[Curious George]

Heller was a garbage decision - a classic 5-4 decision premised on motivated thinking by the right-wing activists on SCOTUS that decided to ignore thew whole 'well regulated militia' thing at the behest of their ideology.

"Heller thus represents the worst of missed opportunities—the chance to ground conservative jurisprudence in enduring and consistent principles of restraint. The Constitution expresses the need for judicial restraint in many different ways—separation of powers, federalism, and the grant of life tenure to unelected judges among them. It is an irony that Heller would in the name of originalism abandon insights so central to the Framers’ designs.[70]

Miller was the garbage decision.

 

[shmogie]

Heller was a garbage decision - a classic 5-4 decision premised on motivated thinking by the right-wing activists on SCOTUS that decided to ignore thew whole 'well regulated militia' thing at the behest of their ideology.

"Heller thus represents the worst of missed opportunities—the chance to ground conservative jurisprudence in enduring and consistent principles of restraint. The Constitution expresses the need for judicial restraint in many different ways—separation of powers, federalism, and the grant of life tenure to unelected judges among them. It is an irony that Heller would in the name of originalism abandon insights so central to the Framers’ designs.[70]

Sounds as though you are disappointed with Heller, too bad.

It confirms a fundamental right defined in the Bill of Rights,.

If you want to expose garbage decisions, you should look at that bastardized conglomeration of unenumerated rights cobbled together in roe v. wade.

It will be modified or overturned, soon.

 

[metis]

The Hiller Decision was the first of it's kind by the SCOTUS because it was so broad, and even Scalia struggled with it afterward. His argument was that a hand-held weapon was allowable under the 2nd Amendment, but when asked later if that could apply to a hand-held anti-aircraft missile that could shoot down domestic airliners, he said he didn't know and would have to think about it.

What else is shallow about his position is that previous SCOTUS decisions had upheld that certain hand-held weapons could be banned, such as decisions dealing with sawed-off shotguns, fully automatic guns, and some previous laws against certain forms of mail-order guns.

 

[esmith]

The Hiller Decision was the first of it's kind by the SCOTUS because it was so broad, and even Scalia struggled with it afterward. His argument was that a hand-held weapon was allowable under the 2nd Amendment, but when asked later if that could apply to a hand-held anti-aircraft missile that could shoot down domestic airliners, he said he didn't know and would have to think about it.

What else is shallow about his position is that previous SCOTUS decisions had upheld that certain hand-held weapons could be banned, such as decisions dealing with sawed-off shotguns, fully automatic guns, and some previous laws against certain forms of mail-order guns.

Sorry @metis there is no such thing as a handheld anti-aircraft weapon. Not trying to denigrate you just pointing out facts.
As you know I am a big supporter of firearm rights, but even I see that sawed-off shotguns, and automatic weapons should not be allowed without following the current laws.
I do not know what you are talking about when you say "certain forms of mail-order guns". There are current laws governing shipment of firearms that I have no problem with.

 

[shmogie]

The Hiller Decision was the first of it's kind by the SCOTUS because it was so broad, and even Scalia struggled with it afterward. His argument was that a hand-held weapon was allowable under the 2nd Amendment, but when asked later if that could apply to a hand-held anti-aircraft missile that could shoot down domestic airliners, he said he didn't know and would have to think about it.

What else is shallow about his position is that previous SCOTUS decisions had upheld that certain hand-held weapons could be banned, such as decisions dealing with sawed-off shotguns, fully automatic guns, and some previous laws against certain forms of mail-order guns.

A hand held missile, or any missile is not a gun or firearm, they are not protected by the 2nd amendment, at least I have not heard of any cases that say otherwise

The Heller decision did not affect the previous restrictions you cite.

Scalia or my neighbor may be alleged to have said a lot of things. As far as Scalia and the law, his vote for the majority in Heller is the only talking that counts.

 

[tas8831]

Sounds as though you are disappointed with Heller, too bad.

Sounds like you enjoy crappy, agenda-driven legal decisions. Too bad. Are you part of a well regulated militia? Was portly entitled righty Scalia? Nope.

It confirms a fundamental right defined in the Bill of Rights,.

For those in a well regulated militia.

If you want to expose garbage decisions, you should look at that bastardized conglomeration of unenumerated rights cobbled together in roe v. wade.

It confirms a fundamental right defined in the Bill of Rights.

See how that works?

It will be modified or overturned, soon.

So much for less government interference....


Yup, which will mean that Alito, Roberts, Dude-bro Kavanaugh, etc., will have lied under oath during their hearings when they affirned their allegiance to stare decisis. Because that is what agenda-driven Christian conservatives do.

And then the good Christian conservatives in the US will continue to do nothing about poverty, will continue to cut education funding, etc., because they care more for the fetus than they do for the already-born. Because Jesus, or something. I guess it is to be expected, considering their source of 'morality' ordered the slaughter of the unborn for being in the uterus of women that 'rebelled' against Yahweh.

Do as Yahweh sort of says, not as He actually does, I guess. Such morals.

Shame that so many American "men" just have to have guns with them at all times - almost as if they understand how without a weapon, they have nothing. Guns make foppish righties into fantasy Rambos.

 

[shmogie]

Sounds like you enjoy crappy, agenda-driven legal decisions. Too bad. Are you part of a well regulated militia? Was portly entitled righty Scalia? Nope.

For those in a well regulated militia.

It confirms a fundamental right defined in the Bill of Rights.

See how that works?

So much for less government interference....


Yup, which will mean that Alito, Roberts, Dude-bro Kavanaugh, etc., will have lied under oath during their hearings when they affirned their allegiance to stare decisis. Because that is what agenda-driven Christian conservatives do.

And then the good Christian conservatives in the US will continue to do nothing about poverty, will continue to cut education funding, etc., because they care more for the fetus than they do for the already-born. Because Jesus, or something. I guess it is to be expected, considering their source of 'morality' ordered the slaughter of the unborn for being in the uterus of women that 'rebelled' against Yahweh.

Do as Yahweh sort of says, not as He actually does, I guess. Such morals.

Shame that so many American "men" just have to have guns with them at all times - almost as if they understand how without a weapon, they have nothing. Guns make foppish righties into fantasy Rambos.

Oh please, you are breaking my heart.

stare decisis is only one factor. What about 150 years of stare decisis before roe ?

Even legal scholars who support abortion admit that roe was a terrible decision based upon legal standards. A little piece of one amendment here, another there, change the definition of legal terms, A decided case, just make up some legal gibberish to try and justify the decsion, a liberal court for you.

As to the militia mirage liberals have been pimping for years, being liberals, they assume a well regulated militia is fraught with government controls, licensing, etc., etc, etc, Just another government controlled entity.

Ever heard of the term original intent ? At the time of the Constitution, a militia was a group of citizens coming together in a crisis. They may have never seen one another before. They certainly were not controlled by the government in any way.

Based on the militia's before the Constitution, at the time of the Constitution, and after, well regulated meant in coming together leaders were elected and a chain of command quickly established, They were ad hoc regulated by themselves so that they would not act as an uncoordinated mob.

It is a concept specifically designed to keep the government out, the Founders themselves knew a government could be what a militia had to defend the people from, that was their experience.

 

[Shad]

It is a concept specifically designed to keep the government out, the Founders themselves knew a government could be what a militia had to defend the people from, that was their experience.

The FF also saw first hand Red Coats remove weapons from militia stockades. The Red Coats being the standing army of a government. A disarmed population is easier to control

 

[shmogie]

Oh please, you are breaking my heart.

stare decisis is only one factor. What about 150 years of stare decisis before roe ?

Even legal scholars who support abortion admit that roe was a terrible decision based upon legal standards. A little piece of one amendment here, another there, change the definition of legal terms, A decided case, just make up some legal gibberish to try and justify the decsion, a liberal court for you.

As to the militia mirage liberals have been pimping for years, being liberals, they assume a well regulated militia is fraught with government controls, licensing, etc., etc, etc, Just another government controlled entity.

Ever heard of the term original intent ? At the time of the Constitution, a militia was a group of citizens coming together in a crisis. They may have never seen one another before. They certainly were not controlled by the government in any way.

Based on the militia's before the Constitution, at the time of the Constitution, and after, well regulated meant in coming together leaders were elected and a chain of command quickly established, They were ad hoc regulated by themselves so that they would not act as an uncoordinated mob.

It is a concept specifically designed to keep the government out, the Founders themselves knew a government could be what a militia had to defend the people from, that was their experience.

BTW, liberals never cease to amuse me in that they cannot defend their **** poor ideas on their merits, so they must always condemn and belittle a group, or person with childish slurs.

Liberal cretins are all the same, echo's from the play pen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

BTW, liberals never cease to amuse me in that they cannot defend their **** poor ideas on their merits, so they must always condemn and belittle a group, or person with childish slurs.

Liberal cretins are all the same, echo's from the play pen.

Hmm... I sense something inherently wrong with this post, but I just can't quite put my finger on it... Let's try a closer look:

Spoiler

BTW, liberals never cease to amuse me in that they cannot defend their **** poor ideas on their merits, so they must always condemn and belittle a group, or person with childish slurs.

Liberal cretins are all the same, echo's from the play pen.

Hmmmmm... Nope. Still not quite getting it; but I just have this hazy feeling that there's something wrong... Let's get closer:

they must always condemn and belittle a group, or person with childish slurs.

Liberal cretins are all the same, echo's from the play pen.

Hmmmmmmmmm... I think I might be seeing it! Let's just try...

they must always condemn and belittle a group, or person with childish slurs.

Right, and...

Liberal cretins are all the same, echo's from the play pen

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

...

Nope, just not seeing the flaw. Must have just been my imagination.

 

[metis]

Sorry @metis there is no such thing as a handheld anti-aircraft weapon.

It's called the "FIM-92 Stinger" missile, and it indeed is hand-held (maybe google it).

 

[esmith]

It's called the "FIM-92 Stinger" missile, and it indeed is hand-held (maybe google it).

No, it is shoulder fired, and is consider a man-portable anti-aircraft system not a "hand-held" anti-aircraft system. Just being technical.

 

[metis]

No, it is shoulder fired, and is consider a man-portable anti-aircraft system not a "hand-held" anti-aircraft system. Just being technical.

Well, since you also hold it in your hands, ...

 

[metis]

No, it is shoulder fired, and is consider a man-portable anti-aircraft system not a "hand-held" anti-aircraft system. Just being technical.

BTW, my guess is that you actually forgot about the Stinger. C'mon, admit it.

 

[esmith]

Well, since you also hold it in your hands, ...

That's stretching the meaning a little bit, but since I'm such a nice fellow I'll give this one to you
So would you consider the WWII Japaneses knee-mortar a "hand-held" weapon since you hold it with your hand or hands

 

[esmith]

BTW, my guess is that you actually forgot about the Stinger. C'mon, admit it.

No I didn't forget the MANPADS. I just don't consider them "hand-held".

 

[tas8831]

Oh please, you are breaking my heart.

You're not breaking mine - you're making me laugh!

stare decisis is only one factor. What about 150 years of stare decisis before roe ?

Was there case law that made it to the Supreme Court regarding the right to have this medical procedure prior to Roe?

In my admittedly brief search, I saw nothing that had gone to SCotUS. State law prior to that was the usual religion-based tripe.

Even legal scholars who support abortion admit that roe was a terrible decision based upon legal standards. A little piece of one amendment here, another there, change the definition of legal terms, A decided case, just make up some legal gibberish to try and justify the decsion, a liberal court for you.

7-2.

As to the militia mirage liberals have been pimping for years, being liberals, they assume a well regulated militia is fraught with government controls, licensing, etc., etc, etc, Just another government controlled entity.

Ever heard of the term original intent ? At the time of the Constitution, a militia was a group of citizens coming together in a crisis. They may have never seen one another before. They certainly were not controlled by the government in any way.

"Well regulated."

As a typical right-winger proto-fascist, you like to gloss over that.

I have seen some truly laughable 'arguments' from righty gun-fetishists about that word "regulated." They seem to prefer Scalia's folly - using a legal dictionary definition that came out years after the BoR was written to claim it meant "trained", not 'controlled by statute.' Great - how much training is required prior to the purchase of a firearm? I never get an answer because that doesn't fit the folly.

Based on the militia's before the Constitution, at the time of the Constitution, and after, well regulated meant in coming together leaders were elected and a chain of command quickly established, They were ad hoc regulated by themselves so that they would not act as an uncoordinated mob.

So cool how you folks come up with these little tales.
You realize that you also just undercut Heller, right?
Scalia ws a joke - he was an originalist only when it suited him and his righty Catholic fascist agenda..

It is a concept specifically designed to keep the government out, the Founders themselves knew a government could be what a militia had to defend the people from, that was their experience.

LOL!

Whatever.... Your expertise on this issue seems on par with your expertise on evolution.

Lacking.

It is funny that we in the USA prefer mythology to reality.

Take the myth of Jessica Lynch the hero, or the Iraqi sculptor.
Take the myth of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.
Take the myth of the Minuteman.
They were notorious for deserting and running away during battle, and it was men that served in the British (or other) professional armies that ended up doing the fighting and such.

But we love our myths. Like the myth of the good guy with a gun. As a former soldier, I find such myths embarrassing.

 

[Curious George]

"Well regulated."

.

What noun did that modify again?

 

[shmogie]

You're not breaking mine - you're making me laugh!

Was there case law that made it to the Supreme Court regarding the right to have this medical procedure prior to Roe?

In my admittedly brief search, I saw nothing that had gone to SCotUS. State law prior to that was the usual religion-based tripe.


7-2.


"Well regulated."

As a typical right-winger proto-fascist, you like to gloss over that.

I have seen some truly laughable 'arguments' from righty gun-fetishists about that word "regulated." They seem to prefer Scalia's folly - using a legal dictionary definition that came out years after the BoR was written to claim it meant "trained", not 'controlled by statute.' Great - how much training is required prior to the purchase of a firearm? I never get an answer because that doesn't fit the folly.

So cool how you folks come up with these little tales.
You realize that you also just undercut Heller, right?
Scalia ws a joke - he was an originalist only when it suited him and his righty Catholic fascist agenda..

LOL!

Whatever.... Your expertise on this issue seems on par with your expertise on evolution.

Lacking.

It is funny that we in the USA prefer mythology to reality.

Take the myth of Jessica Lynch the hero, or the Iraqi sculptor.
Take the myth of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.
Take the myth of the Minuteman.
They were notorious for deserting and running away during battle, and it was men that served in the British (or other) professional armies that ended up doing the fighting and such.

But we love our myths. Like the myth of the good guy with a gun. As a former soldier, I find such myths embarrassing.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ever heard of the term original intent ? At the time of the Constitution, a militia was a group of citizens coming together in a crisis. They may have never seen one another before. They certainly were not controlled by the government in any way.

Based on the militia's before the Constitution, at the time of the Constitution, and after, well regulated meant in coming together leaders were elected and a chain of command quickly established, They were ad hoc regulated by themselves so that they would not act as an uncoordinated mob.

It is a concept specifically designed to keep the government out, the Founders themselves knew a government could be what a militia had to defend the people from, that was their experience.

So when the Constitution uses the term "militia," it just means "a group of citizens coming together in crisis?"

The Constitution (in Article 1, Section 8) gives Congress the power to organize and discipline the militia. It also gives the states the power to oversee training of the militia.

Do you think that Congress - and the states - have these broad powers over any citizen who might group together in a crisis?