Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[CurveLight]

As opposed to what you're doing: "It's what I say it is, and for proof, I offer my assertion that it is what I say it is!"

Holy shit you're stoopid. I've been explaining my position and if you whiny brats paid attention you would see that. Naw.....stick to your crying....it's what you know best.

" I've been explaining my position" = "...and for proof, I offer my assertion that it is what I say it is!"

I could waste the time in quoting all my posts where I've explained my position but it would not stop you from being dishonest.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve, you are wrong.

Get over it, get on with your life.

Whatever you say dave......

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ask yourself that question, daveman.

We don't have to they RULED. No matter how much squealing you or Curve do, the right to own, possess and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court. THAT was the ruling. No interpretation needed. Further one is NOT required to be a member of a militia to have said right.

When SCOTUS ruled blacks counted as only 3/5 of a person they were right? By your logic all blacks must still only be 3/5 of a person because that is what SCOTUS said........

You fucking dumbass.

I'll bet you can't find that case. You neither apprehend the origin nor the meaning of what you've posted.

 

[CurveLight]

I remember a GOP convention in SLC some years ago that I attended, and some of the idjits thought they had a constitutional right to heavy weapons.

Why do you want to restrict what kind of arms? Haven't you guys been screaming we have the right to own weapons? But now you want to dictate what kind of weapons? Hypocrites.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I remember a GOP convention in SLC some years ago that I attended, and some of the idjits thought they had a constitutional right to heavy weapons.

Why do you want to restrict what kind of arms? Haven't you guys been screaming we have the right to own weapons? But now you want to dictate what kind of weapons? Hypocrites.

He's not one of us. I believe the consensus is that he's an escaped mental patient. Definitely a nutter.

 

[ConHog]

Ask yourself that question, daveman.

We don't have to they RULED. No matter how much squealing you or Curve do, the right to own, possess and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court. THAT was the ruling. No interpretation needed. Further one is NOT required to be a member of a militia to have said right.

When SCOTUS ruled blacks counted as only 3/5 of a person they were right? By your logic all blacks must still only be 3/5 of a person because that is what SCOTUS said........

You fucking dumbass.

Oops that wasn't the SCOTUS

Three-fifths compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CurveLight]

We don't have to they RULED. No matter how much squealing you or Curve do, the right to own, possess and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court. THAT was the ruling. No interpretation needed. Further one is NOT required to be a member of a militia to have said right.

When SCOTUS ruled blacks counted as only 3/5 of a person they were right? By your logic all blacks must still only be 3/5 of a person because that is what SCOTUS said........

You fucking dumbass.

I'll bet you can't find that case. You neither apprehend the origin nor the meaning of what you've posted.

Thank you so much for pointing that out. The 3/5 Compromise is in Article 1 of COTUS and not in the Scott case so let me make the same point about a SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled:

"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States."
Dred Scott case

My point still stands. Saying SCOTUS is right simply because they made the ruling means there should be no black citizens since SCOTUS said so......

 

[Tech_Esq]

When SCOTUS ruled blacks counted as only 3/5 of a person they were right? By your logic all blacks must still only be 3/5 of a person because that is what SCOTUS said........

You fucking dumbass.

I'll bet you can't find that case. You neither apprehend the origin nor the meaning of what you've posted.

Thank you so much for pointing that out. The 3/5 Compromise is in Article 1 of COTUS and not in the Scott case so let me make the same point about a SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled:

"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States."
Dred Scott case

My point still stands. Saying SCOTUS is right simply because they made the ruling means there should be no black citizens since SCOTUS said so......

Welcome.

Far be it from me to tell you your business, but I think you'd be much better off arguing Plessy v. Ferguson for this point than Dred Scott. You see all someone would have to do is point out that when Dred was decided that was the logical outcome of the case. It was consistent with the legal thinking at the time and the laws of the legislature. Then we fought a Civil War and all that stuff change (in no small part due to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments).

But, with Plessy you get the validation of Jim Crow laws and no intervening Civil War to mess you up. See what I mean?

 

[Tech_Esq]

For some reason I'm getting that, "I'm giving the Iranians arms for hostages" feeling.

Ethical, unethical.....hmmmmm.

 

[Charles_Main]

What this is really is a victory for the constitution. However it is very troubling that 4 of them did not agree. It shows just how important our current political climate is. One of those 5 dies or decides to retire under Obama and all these close 5 to 4 rulings go the other way, and our constitution becomes meaningless. Subject to the whims of judicial activism.

Of course states and the Fed and cities should be able to restrict some weapons, but they can no longer apply sweeping bans, and that is a win for us all.

You can not argue with the numbers. Places that allow their citizens to legally own guns, have less violent crime. Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only issue that interests me, other than the right outcome happened, is that it took five conservatives using an "activist" approach, incorporation, to do the job.

However, political and philosophical purity has never been a mark of American politics.

 

[CurveLight]

I remember a GOP convention in SLC some years ago that I attended, and some of the idjits thought they had a constitutional right to heavy weapons.

Why do you want to restrict what kind of arms? Haven't you guys been screaming we have the right to own weapons? But now you want to dictate what kind of weapons? Hypocrites.

He's not one of us. I believe the consensus is that he's an escaped mental patient. Definitely a nutter.

Yawn. Will ***** like you ever get tired of ignoring posts by nothing but name calling? I'm guessing.......no.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Curve, you are just as wrong as they are on this issue, but the wackos on the far right don't think clearly.

Their synapses don't function real good.

 

[The T]

What this is really is a victory for the constitution. However it is very troubling that 4 of them did not agree. It shows just how important our current political climate is. One of those 5 dies or decides to retire under Obama and all these close 5 to 4 rulings go the other way, and our constitution becomes meaningless. Subject to the whims of judicial activism.

Of course states and the Fed and cities should be able to restrict some weapons, but they can no longer apply sweeping bans, and that is a win for us all.

You can not argue with the numbers. Places that allow their citizens to legally own guns, have less violent crime. Period.

And the political Class knows it too. It keeps them in check. Why else are they in such a huff with this victory?

 

[CurveLight]

I'll bet you can't find that case. You neither apprehend the origin nor the meaning of what you've posted.

Thank you so much for pointing that out. The 3/5 Compromise is in Article 1 of COTUS and not in the Scott case so let me make the same point about a SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled:

"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States."
Dred Scott case

My point still stands. Saying SCOTUS is right simply because they made the ruling means there should be no black citizens since SCOTUS said so......

Welcome.

Far be it from me to tell you your business, but I think you'd be much better off arguing Plessy v. Ferguson for this point than Dred Scott. You see all someone would have to do is point out that when Dred was decided that was the logical outcome of the case. It was consistent with the legal thinking at the time and the laws of the legislature. Then we fought a Civil War and all that stuff change (in no small part due to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments).

But, with Plessy you get the validation of Jim Crow laws and no intervening Civil War to mess you up. See what I mean?

Lol.......what a fucking waste. You obviously don't comprehend the point.

 

[ConHog]

Why do you want to restrict what kind of arms? Haven't you guys been screaming we have the right to own weapons? But now you want to dictate what kind of weapons? Hypocrites.

He's not one of us. I believe the consensus is that he's an escaped mental patient. Definitely a nutter.

Yawn. Will ***** like you ever get tired of ignoring posts by nothing but name calling? I'm guessing.......no.

You're such an idiot. Calling someone a name and then bitching about them calling names. Just shut your cock holster.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve, you are just as wrong as they are on this issue, but the wackos on the far right don't think clearly.

Their synapses don't function real good.

Wow. Great explanation.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Thank you so much for pointing that out. The 3/5 Compromise is in Article 1 of COTUS and not in the Scott case so let me make the same point about a SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled:

"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States."
Dred Scott case

My point still stands. Saying SCOTUS is right simply because they made the ruling means there should be no black citizens since SCOTUS said so......

Welcome.

Far be it from me to tell you your business, but I think you'd be much better off arguing Plessy v. Ferguson for this point than Dred Scott. You see all someone would have to do is point out that when Dred was decided that was the logical outcome of the case. It was consistent with the legal thinking at the time and the laws of the legislature. Then we fought a Civil War and all that stuff change (in no small part due to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments).

But, with Plessy you get the validation of Jim Crow laws and no intervening Civil War to mess you up. See what I mean?

Lol.......what a fucking waste. You obviously don't comprehend the point.

I'm not speaking to the point. I'm trying to help you out. You want to prove that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and just because it says a thing doesn't make it true. And, you were trying to use examples of previous poorly decided cases to illustrate your point.

I'm just pointing out that in Dred the SCOTUS was more right than they were in Plessy. So you can make your point better. Once you've done that, then maybe I'll argue with you. Actually, I haven't been following what you've been saying so maybe we don't have an argument, but I'm betting we do.

 

[CurveLight]

He's not one of us. I believe the consensus is that he's an escaped mental patient. Definitely a nutter.

Yawn. Will ***** like you ever get tired of ignoring posts by nothing but name calling? I'm guessing.......no.

You're such an idiot. Calling someone a name and then bitching about them calling names. Just shut your cock holster.

Will ***** like you ever get tired of ignoring posts by nothing but name calling? I'm guessing.......no.

(I'm not bitching about name calling you dumb twat)

 

[CurveLight]

Welcome.

Far be it from me to tell you your business, but I think you'd be much better off arguing Plessy v. Ferguson for this point than Dred Scott. You see all someone would have to do is point out that when Dred was decided that was the logical outcome of the case. It was consistent with the legal thinking at the time and the laws of the legislature. Then we fought a Civil War and all that stuff change (in no small part due to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments).

But, with Plessy you get the validation of Jim Crow laws and no intervening Civil War to mess you up. See what I mean?

Lol.......what a fucking waste. You obviously don't comprehend the point.

I'm not speaking to the point. I'm trying to help you out. You want to prove that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and just because it says a thing doesn't make it true. And, you were trying to use examples of previous poorly decided cases to illustrate your point.

I'm just pointing out that in Dred the SCOTUS was more right than they were in Plessy. So you can make your point better. Once you've done that, then maybe I'll argue with you. Actually, I haven't been following what you've been saying so maybe we don't have an argument, but I'm betting we do.

That is why you don't get the point. People are saying the ruling is correct based on nothing more than the outcome in that SCOTUS has spoken. Since they are not arguing based on the merits of the ruling it's a moot point to weed out the merits of the Scott v Plessy cases.