AZhitman wrote:Let me be the first to say, the attitude of the "right" on this matter is NOT an "I told you so", but more of a, "See what we can accomplish when we play fair and ignore politics?"

If this case doesn't make the TRUE libs (those who ignore reality and toe the party line based on emotion not logic) wake up and see what their partisanship has done, nothing will.

With you 100%...

Quote »And trust me, those of us on the right have had a few brutal wake-up calls as well. It sucks, but it washes off the hypocrisy and makes us more critical thinkers.[/quote]But, I don't think that you and much of the right adequately recognized the Gitmo case as such. Similarly, much of the left is unlikely to come about after this ruling.

These two cases are in many ways not so different - that is what I hope people see. Hosing the hypocrisy.

I am liking this Kennedy more and more

HashiriyaS14 wrote:I completely agree with Repo here.

Anyone who would be excited about, for instance, the Supreme Court upholding freedom of religion should also be excited about the Supreme Court upholding the right to own a firearm.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to support. If you don't like part of the constitution, you probably don't live in the right country.

Here here....I agree with both you and Andy. I have always said, if you were willing to forfeit a Constitutional Right that you DONT see as being important, then you need to also pick a 'pet Constitutional Right' that you DO see as important. It is only our rights a as a whole that protect us, not an individual right.

When I used to see Rosie O Donnell on The View ranting about and talking down the 2nd Amendment, I always thought that I had to give up my 2nd Amendment rights, then she can give up her voting rights under the 19th Amendment.

sensibleS13driver wrote:But, I don't think that you and much of the right adequately recognized the Gitmo case as such.

Gitmo is a much more emotional issue.

While I completely concur with the Courts' decision on it (in my head), my frustrated heart says otherwise.

Fortunately, such matters are not of the heart, and that's why we have a Court.

The Gitmo ruling is a correct one IMO - I wish sometimes we *could* be hypocritical - But that's not fair and it's not just.

And yet 4 out of the 5 judges whose rationality you applaud for this ruling succumbed to the emotion/partisan pressure in that case.

Just because you agree with the Right's emotion doesn't make it any less hypocritical or irrational.

I suppose we need such a divided court until we can find 8 more Kennedys, since none of the other Justices can control their frustrated hearts. 5-4 rulings should be reserved for the very rare case and issue. Seeing them occur so often in these emotionally-charged yet brutally obvious cases is a disappointment and discredits the entire court.
Modified by sensibleS13driver at 10:46 AM 6/28/2008

AZhitman wrote:The Constitution is the single most brilliantly-drafted document in modern history... The more you study it, the more amazed you'll be by the foresight and endurance of its wording.

I couldn't agree with you more but it still leaves me torn about this one I can honestly see both methods of reading it (which is really what it comes down to). My only comment on the DC case will be to quote a jurist with whom I sure you would surely agree.

"[This decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." ~Antonin Scalia

Does anyone have an explanation how this is a relevant part of a close text reading a few days ago, but not now? Whiplash sure is a *****



EDIT: Spelling

I was watching "Meet the Press" on Sunday and the first segment featured the Democratic governors of Colorado and Wyoming.

Both support the individual's right to own firearms, however they both also worry that unrestricted firearms ownership/carry will be a disaster in inner-city areas.

The two of them, and Brokaw, all more or less agreed that firearms are more of a rural/city issue than a partisan one.

It's pretty obvious that totally unrestricted firearms carry/ownership in inner cities would have disastrous consequences, making the guns too available and too hard to track. On the other hand, you can't sensibly apply strict regulations to more rural areas where none of the same problems apply.

Thoughts?

I don't think anyone really wants unrestricted. A background check should be mandatory. A permit... I'm a little more hesitant on a permit as it just a way for the government to tax a person to have a gun. Just register the gun to the person, which should be done at the time of purchase.

HashiriyaS14 wrote:I was watching "Meet the Press" on Sunday and the first segment featured the Democratic governors of Colorado and Wyoming.

Both support the individual's right to own firearms, however they both also worry that unrestricted firearms ownership/carry will be a disaster in inner-city areas.

The two of them, and Brokaw, all more or less agreed that firearms are more of a rural/city issue than a partisan one.

It's pretty obvious that totally unrestricted firearms carry/ownership in inner cities would have disastrous consequences, making the guns too available and too hard to track. On the other hand, you can't sensibly apply strict regulations to more rural areas where none of the same problems apply.

Thoughts?

Parker v. District of Columbia and District of Columbia v. Heller had nothing to do with carry rights. From what I understand, the Supreme Court ruled that reasonable gun laws where not affected by this ruling. And to be honest I have heard nothing from the NRA-ILA or 'Cam and Company' about using District of Columbia v. Heller to chip away at Conceal Carry Laws.

I live in a city that has 1.6 million people in the Metro area. We have some of the loosest gun laws in the state of Indiana and I actually feel safer walking around in Indianapolis than I do in the DC Metro area and Chicago. I don’t have a problem with gun ownership nor lawful carrying in high urban areas. I think most responsible gun owners recognize the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, children and people with mental illness (to name a few groups.) I also think that gun owners would like for the police, the Judicial System and the Government to enforce the laws that we do have. Here is my issue with anti gun and anti crime legislation. The politicians run around saying that we need more laws on the books to prosecute criminals, so State Legislatures pass new laws (typically on top of old ones), then pat themselves on the back as if they are fighting crime and then go on to make their political advertisements extolling the 'fact' that they are fighting crime. When in reality, no new cops are put on the streets, no new jails are built and no Truth in Sentencing legislation is ever passed from their legislation. When we pick up criminals, we let others go in order to make room in our already crowded jail systems and most criminals sentenced do not serve even three fourths of their term before being released. It is all a rouse to make you feel better about your government doing something to combat crime. I want the laws already on the books in Indiana enforced, more cops put on the streets, more jails built and truth in sentencing passed before we even start to pass new gun laws. I also resent politicians and laws that target lawful gun owners as if they are the problem.

And that BS about ‘not in my back yard’ I live 10 miles away from the Women’s Prison, the Juvenile Detention Center and the Medium Security Prison in Pendleton.

Cold_Zero wrote:blah blah blah all that stuff you said

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

I, personally, believe that stronger sentencing and enforcement work just as well in cities as they do in rural areas. I think that the Virginia model could be applied pretty much anywhere.

I DO think that, especially in city areas, registration should be mandatory and classes should be considered. I also, however, think that open carry would be a good idea, as would allowing people to shoot someone who is burglarizing their home.

In Indiana our politicians and laws have a healthy respect for the Castle Doctrine. I agree with the laws that govern the use in deadly force in this state. What I am dead set against politicians from outside Indiana, say New Jersey trying to tell us Hoosiers how, when and why/why not, we can defend ourselves. I sat down one Saturday afternoon and read the Maryland State Handgun Carry Licensing documentation, just for kicks. I actually thought I might file for a license for when I visit my family. I didnt get past the first page of the application before I knew it was evident that there would be NO WAY I could obtain their license. So I will have to find a state that reciprocates with Maryland and apply there.

My years in criminal justice administration taught me that people will blame everyone but the criminal for the poor choices made that lead to crime.

For a punishment to be a deterrent, it must be 3 things:

SwiftCertain Severe

If we haven't all three, then we're wasting our time.

Guns aren't the issue. The Framers knew it, the 5 Justices who actually comprehend "liberty" get it, and the majority of Americans get it.

The reason I don't consider the 5 to have decisded in a partisan manner? They didn't. Read Stevens' dissent again, esp the part I quoted.

He might as well have said, "The Framers couldn't have imagined that we'd have stupid citizens who can't think for themselves, so we need smart old men to think for them."

Screw him and his attempts to infuse government control into our lives.

If you can't tell me what i can / can't do with the life of an unborn child, you SURE AS HELL can't tell me I can't own a gun.

Can't have it both ways, Lefty.

.

skylndrftr wrote:
"[This decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." ~Antonin Scalia

What a ridiculous statement. This is obviously based on emotion and fear with no basis in fact. In his postion, he should not be saying things like that.

The media and people that don't understand are making more out of this than it actually is. What no one can answer for me, personally, is how affirming the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution is going to cause an increase in crime? NEWSFLASH: Criminals don't buy guns legally and they do not abide by laws such as the DC gun ban.

sensibleS13driver wrote:Just because you agreed with the sentiment of the Gitmo dissent doesn't make it any less opportunistically ignorant of clear constitutional law than the Stevens DC dissent, and it doesn't make the Right any less hewn to partisan interests.

I think you misunderstood me.

I concur with the Gitmo ruling. As frustrating a situation it is, and as difficult as it makes mattters, it's fair and just.

sensibleS13driver wrote:I seem to recall that one of these rights has a 200 year old constitutional amendment protecting it, and one does not.

I think you may have misunderstood me here as well.

Repo Man wrote:
What a ridiculous statement. This is obviously based on emotion and fear with no basis in fact. In his postion, he should not be saying things like that.

Your right, I am in total agreement. That statement is based not in law but in emotion and it is worrying to here a SCOTUS justices saying that in an opinion regarding constitutional rights. However its not from this case, its from the detainee rights case a few weeks ago.

So does anyone question the validity of this when the same person pens the the majority opinion? In my mind, agree or disagree, how can you not question anything regarding law written by the same person

mtcookson wrote:
Shooting straight up in the air is harmless... now if they're shooting at an elevated angle that is dangerous. Shooting straight up though, the bullet will reach its maximum height, stop, then start falling and will reach a low terminal velocity that simply won't allow the bullet to kill a person. It may leave a bruise but it simply wouldn't be able to kill as its not traveling fast enough. Now, at an elevated angle it will still have some power behind it and that can kill a person.

As much as I'd like to find the drag coefficient of a certain bullet, mass, etc while I'm at work, I'd rather just say I still wouldn't want to be pelted by a bunch of harmless bullets falling from the sky.

My point is, shooting in the sky(especially in a city) is a dumb thing to do.

AZhitman wrote:If you can't tell me what i can / can't do with the life of an unborn child, you SURE AS HELL can't tell me I can't own a gun.

Can't have it both ways, Lefty.

The only way I can see those two issues being related is if you use the gun to shoot the unborn child.

Hmm, I think he's saying if you can't keep a woman from killing her own child(unborn), then how can you tell anyone they can't have a gun that essentially does the same: kill.

ishkabibble wrote:
The only way I can see those two issues being related is if you use the gun to shoot the unborn child.

Again, how is it that they need to be related?

I oppose abortion as a matter of beliefs, but begrudgingly accept that it's a choice that is available to members of a free society.

You oppose gun ownership as a matter of beliefs, but it is a choice that is available to members of a free society.

I'd even argue that gun ownership is MORE "guaranteed" by the Constitution since it is addressed clearly and plainly...

<side note>Since you brought it up, I wonder... if Joe Blow (with his Constitutionally-protected handgun) shoots a pregnant woman in the belly as she's walking into an abortion clinic (for a Constitutionally-protected D&C), will he not be charged with murder?

Hmmmm....

Does he kill the woman? In Indiana if the child is not beyond 7 months old, he will not be charged for murder.

We just had an incident a few months ago in Indianapolis where a pregnant bank teller was shot by a bank robber. She lost her twins and now they can't charge the bank robber with double homicide.

Cold_Zero wrote:We just had an incident a few months ago in Indianapolis where a pregnant bank teller was shot by a bank robber. She lost her twins and now they can't charge the bank robber with double homicide.

Which is a damned travesty. I hope those guys get f'ing shanked in prison.

You know Prosecutor Carl Brizzi would hook them up to old sparky himself, if Indiana State law allowed for murder in the first degree for the death unborn children.

"Criminals have a choice... Victims don't" -Carl Brizzi