I've heard it on here so much enough is enough

[NYcarbineer]

I can read and think for myself.

Can you? Or do you need others to explain things to you?

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Yeah sure, the city. People can practice concealed carry in the state of Illinois now. As far as my interpretation of the law goes, state law trumps municipal law. Chicago is now breaking the law by banning handguns within its confines.

General Assembly overrides governor's veto of concealed carry bill - Chicago Tribune

Secondly, if you want legal precedent, just read the Heller case. The Supreme Court would have all it needed to reverse the statute. If you want to know how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment, again, read the Heller case.

Daveman says we don't need a Supreme Court because the 2nd Amendment is so clear.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can read and think for myself.

Can you? Or do you need others to explain things to you?

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

The city of Chicago banned handguns because the liberals running the place ignored the Constitution.

Thanks for proving my point about the left seeing only what they want to see.

You didn't answer my question. Because you're an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

technically it does. I think most pornography laws are state and local, not federal.

But a state or local law cannot violate the Constitution. So if the Constitution's first amendment protects the publication and distribution of child pornography,

that makes all laws against that unconstitutional, according to you.

What planet do you live on? State and Local laws can violate the Constitution. Because they are enforced by local and state government, the rules pertaining to government in the Constitution apply there as well.

You just contradicted yourself in 2 sentences. Wake up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There are a couple examples that I could give as to what you're looking for...

Go ahead, asswipe.

Social Security, public education, minimum wage.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 1st Amendment says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged. Period.

That is clear and concise.

So how can child pornography laws, which abridge freedom of the press, be unconstitutional,

UNLESS, the Court interprets the law in a manner that requires judgments made OUTSIDE the 'clear and concise' wording of the 1st amendment?

...that is, if the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, is not open to interpretation??

 

[daveman]

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Yeah sure, the city. People can practice concealed carry in the state of Illinois now. As far as my interpretation of the law goes, state law trumps municipal law. Chicago is now breaking the law by banning handguns within its confines.

General Assembly overrides governor's veto of concealed carry bill - Chicago Tribune

Secondly, if you want legal precedent, just read the Heller case. The Supreme Court would have all it needed to reverse the statute. If you want to know how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment, again, read the Heller case.

Daveman says we don't need a Supreme Court because the 2nd Amendment is so clear.

That's not what I said, but -- again, the left sees only what they want to see.

You don't have to keep proving it.

 

[daveman]

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

The city of Chicago banned handguns because the liberals running the place ignored the Constitution.

Thanks for proving my point about the left seeing only what they want to see.

You didn't answer my question. Because you're an idiot.

If the left could read a simple document without twisting it to suit their freedom-suppressing agenda, the law wouldn't exist in the first place.

It's okay. You can acknowledge that. You won't burst into flames.

 

[BlackSand]

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Well the Supreme Court could be an avenue used to challenge the case ... But it is not the only avenue available.
The same body that wrote the law can overturn the law ... The State of Illinois could petition or reverse the law if it was in violation of State rights ... And so on.

As an example ... If New Orleans were to try and pass the same law ... It wouldn't make muster with the Louisiana State Constitution ... And would be thrown out long before it got to the Supreme Court.

 

[rightwinger]

Good thing I'm not doing that, huh?

Afraid you are

You are claiming that the government that the founders set up for an 18th century, third world America is what they would have wanted for today

I don't think our founders were that stupid, do you?

The government they established with the Constitution would work fine today.

But too many people have been ignoring the simple document for too long.

It would collapse in a week

 

[rightwinger]

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Seems they wanted to ensure that their militia had access to arms. Now, we have to set up some of those well regulated militias don't we?

Seems clear and concise

Yes, it is. But your interpretation of it is wrong.

The left sees what they want to see, even in a clear, concise document.

Not that I am a founding father or anything....

But if I wanted to be clear and concise, I would have made the second amendment read..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It that was what I really intended

 

[Flopper]

First liberals on this board or some liberals claim that the founding fathers of this country were liberals. What I want to address is which liberal policy would the founders of America support?
Give their names and the policy.

Both liberal and conservative are relative terms. Leading a revolt against your king would probably qualify as a pretty liberal act. However almost all the founders were classic liberals which means they would be considered conservatives today.

 

[daveman]

Afraid you are

You are claiming that the government that the founders set up for an 18th century, third world America is what they would have wanted for today

I don't think our founders were that stupid, do you?

The government they established with the Constitution would work fine today.

But too many people have been ignoring the simple document for too long.

It would collapse in a week

Such little faith you have in the Constitution, and in America.

 

[daveman]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Seems they wanted to ensure that their militia had access to arms. Now, we have to set up some of those well regulated militias don't we?

Seems clear and concise

Yes, it is. But your interpretation of it is wrong.

The left sees what they want to see, even in a clear, concise document.

Not that I am a founding father or anything....

But if I wanted to be clear and concise, I would have made the second amendment read..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It that was what I really intended

And yet, oddly, most people knew what they intended all along.

The left got it wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You find as an amazing coincidence that for rightwingers, not only is the Constitution clear and concise,

but it just happens to agree with the rightwing agenda in every instance,

and where the Supreme Court makes rulings the right wing doesn't agree with, it's also an amazing coincidence that that only happens when the Supreme Court makes a mistake!!!

How convenient, eh?

I wonder how much of a fit you were throwing when the SCOTUS stuck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act? Oh yeah, you were (maybe not you in particular) saying "oh that's a mistake, black people won't be able to vote!"

If the SCOTUS makes a ruling that neither side approves of, the same behavior will ensue.

Really, Carbine, stop. You're melting into a puddle of goo as we speak. You cannot for the life of you contemplate a rational, objective argument.

Feel free to name the Supreme Court decisions that there is a consensus on the Right that the decision was constitutionally correct,

but the Right doesn't like the decision.

What are you talking about?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Yeah sure, the city. People can practice concealed carry in the state of Illinois now. As far as my interpretation of the law goes, state law trumps municipal law. Chicago is now breaking the law by banning handguns within its confines.

General Assembly overrides governor's veto of concealed carry bill - Chicago Tribune

Secondly, if you want legal precedent, just read the Heller case. The Supreme Court would have all it needed to reverse the statute. If you want to know how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment, again, read the Heller case.

Daveman says we don't need a Supreme Court because the 2nd Amendment is so clear.

As expected, all you have are ad hominem and genetic fallacies. You liberals act like there needn't be a congress, since the president can make any law he wants from the oval office.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The city of Chicago banned handguns. How do you get that law overturned without a Supreme Court interpreting that as a violation of the 2nd amendment?

The city of Chicago banned handguns because the liberals running the place ignored the Constitution.

Thanks for proving my point about the left seeing only what they want to see.

You didn't answer my question. Because you're an idiot.

No. He didn't answer because YOU are the idiot.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Afraid you are

You are claiming that the government that the founders set up for an 18th century, third world America is what they would have wanted for today

I don't think our founders were that stupid, do you?

The government they established with the Constitution would work fine today.

But too many people have been ignoring the simple document for too long.

It would collapse in a week

The kleptocracy would collapse in a week.

The nation would flourish.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Clear and consise documents would not require that ruling.

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Seems they wanted to ensure that their militia had access to arms. Now, we have to set up some of those well regulated militias don't we?

Seems clear and concise

Militias arise organically. There is no "we" necessary to set them up.

 

[rightwinger]

The government they established with the Constitution would work fine today.

But too many people have been ignoring the simple document for too long.

It would collapse in a week

Such little faith you have in the Constitution, and in America.

You have such a poor perception of what an 18th century government was capable of

No way could they operate a 21st century superpower

 

[rightwinger]

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Seems they wanted to ensure that their militia had access to arms. Now, we have to set up some of those well regulated militias don't we?

Seems clear and concise

Militias arise organically. There is no "we" necessary to set them up.

You have no understanding of what "well regulated" means

Our founders did not have a standing army. They relied on militias for defense. The armed rednecks we have today do not foot the bill