Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[Dr Grump]

Nothing wrong with Statism...sounds like a good idea....

 

[daveman]

Son, you don't understand the concept of incorporation in relationship to the 14th, do you? That is why you will lose on birthright citizenship, why you will continue to lose on Roe, why the civil rights legislation was both constitutionally and morally correct, and a host of other issues.

A conservative court adopted leftist procedures (incorporation) for the decision.

The Roberts Court gutted far right conservative and libertarian positions. Watch Paul scream in the news. Actually google both of them for there reaction about this.

I am laughing. Never did I think Roberts would have the guts to do this, and I am glad he did.

Child, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Where have I voiced an opinion on birthright citizenship, Roe, and civil rights legislation? Links, please. And bear in mind there is no URL to your ass.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nothing wrong with Statism...sounds like a good idea....

Leave it to Grump, he never saw a problem totalitarianism couldn't fix.

 

[boedicca]

This is great news! So far, the one margin vote on the SCOTUS is the thin line between us and the politicians who prefer to rule unarmed peasants.

 

[daveman]

Nothing wrong with Statism...sounds like a good idea....

Yeah, it's worked so well all throughout history.

 

[Dr Grump]

Nothing wrong with Statism...sounds like a good idea....

Leave it to Grump, he never saw a problem totalitarianism couldn't fix.

Because as that great beacon of Democracy, the USA, has proven, unfettered capitalism works so well. Can you say "GFC". Oh, and where did it start? Oh, that's right sub-prime mortgages, which almost caused the world economy to collapse started in China? Whoops, no. Um....Brazil? Er...no. How about Europe? Um. no again.....

That aside, you don't think the Federal Reserve fits under the Statist definition? It's doesn't assist in the 'The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.'

Trust Tech Esq not to see the bigger picture.....

 

[Mini 14]

I think the bayonet thing is a leftover from the Clinton ban. I know we couldn't sell SKs with a functional bayonet for a while, but we could sell the bayonet separately.

I've never really understood that one either.

 

[CurveLight]

The second amendment is the sodom and gomorrah story of the Constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd explicitly affirming individual rights to own weapons but only under a well regulated militia I fully support the right to own guns but it's not in the 2nd amendment.

You must be a Prince fan, seein' that you party like it's 1995.

Get with the program...

a. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living? The reference to a militia is a reason why the people have a right to arms, but it is not the only reason.
“When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?
George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

b. “…well-regulated…” Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)

This is what I'm talking about. All of that dancing and it does nothing to address the fact there is no individual guarantee in the 2nd.

 

[Dr Grump]

Nothing wrong with Statism...sounds like a good idea....

Yeah, it's worked so well all throughout history.

Note the definition of Statism as posted by The T. You don't think your Fed Reserve (ie, the monetary entity that comes under your centralised - ie, Federal, not state govt(s) - doesn't have control over economic planning or policy? Or that your Congress or Senate (another part of your centralised govt.) doesn't either?

 

[daveman]

Nothing wrong with Statism...sounds like a good idea....

Yeah, it's worked so well all throughout history.

Note the definition of Statism as posted by The T. You don't think your Fed Reserve (ie, the monetary entity that comes under your centralised - ie, Federal, not state govt(s) - doesn't have control over economic planning or policy? Or that your Congress or Senate (another part of your centralised govt.) doesn't either?

Yes, they do. And they shouldn't. Unlimited government control, like that you espouse, is unsustainable and anti-freedom.

 

[Jeremy]

Nothing wrong with Statism...sounds like a good idea....

Leave it to Grump, he never saw a problem totalitarianism couldn't fix.

Because as that great beacon of Democracy, the USA, has proven, unfettered capitalism works so well. Can you say "GFC". Oh, and where did it start? Oh, that's right sub-prime mortgages, which almost caused the world economy to collapse started in China? Whoops, no. Um....Brazil? Er...no. How about Europe? Um. no again.....

That aside, you don't think the Federal Reserve fits under the Statist definition? It's doesn't assist in the 'The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.'

Trust Tech Esq not to see the bigger picture.....

I can say "GFC". Where did it start? Can you say "GSE"?

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, it's worked so well all throughout history.

Note the definition of Statism as posted by The T. You don't think your Fed Reserve (ie, the monetary entity that comes under your centralised - ie, Federal, not state govt(s) - doesn't have control over economic planning or policy? Or that your Congress or Senate (another part of your centralised govt.) doesn't either?

Yes, they do. And they shouldn't. Unlimited government control, like that you espouse, is unsustainable and anti-freedom.

And yet unfettered capitalism is sustainable as proven by the meltdown....?

Depends on your definition of freedom....

 

[daveman]

Note the definition of Statism as posted by The T. You don't think your Fed Reserve (ie, the monetary entity that comes under your centralised - ie, Federal, not state govt(s) - doesn't have control over economic planning or policy? Or that your Congress or Senate (another part of your centralised govt.) doesn't either?

Yes, they do. And they shouldn't. Unlimited government control, like that you espouse, is unsustainable and anti-freedom.

And yet unfettered capitalism is sustainable as proven by the meltdown....?

Depends on your definition of freedom....

Capitalism wasn't unfettered. Government was in it up to its elbows. And that's why the meltdown happened.

 

[Dr Grump]

I can say "GFC". Where did it start? Can you say "GSE"?

Possibly...but again, those merchant bankers and finance houses were so against them right? They stayed away from them like a case of the plague. Why did Lehman Bros go under again?

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes, they do. And they shouldn't. Unlimited government control, like that you espouse, is unsustainable and anti-freedom.

And yet unfettered capitalism is sustainable as proven by the meltdown....?

Depends on your definition of freedom....

Capitalism wasn't unfettered. Government was in it up to its elbows. And that's why the meltdown happened.

See my last....

 

[Jeremy]

Yes, they do. And they shouldn't. Unlimited government control, like that you espouse, is unsustainable and anti-freedom.

And yet unfettered capitalism is sustainable as proven by the meltdown....?

Depends on your definition of freedom....

Capitalism wasn't unfettered. Government was in it up to its elbows. And that's why the meltdown happened.

I already asked if he could say GSE. But I guess that went over his head.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Note the definition of Statism as posted by The T. You don't think your Fed Reserve (ie, the monetary entity that comes under your centralised - ie, Federal, not state govt(s) - doesn't have control over economic planning or policy? Or that your Congress or Senate (another part of your centralised govt.) doesn't either?

Yes, they do. And they shouldn't. Unlimited government control, like that you espouse, is unsustainable and anti-freedom.

And yet unfettered capitalism is sustainable as proven by the meltdown....?

Depends on your definition of freedom....

What a fantasy...

There has not been "unfettered capitalism " nor has any such thing been as "proven by the meltdown."

If there are libraries where you are, see if you can find a book about Theodore Roosevelt, the 'Trust Buster'...

Should you require it, I'd been happy to instruct you on the provenance of the 'meltdown,' and the governmental role therein.

 

[Dr Grump]

And yet unfettered capitalism is sustainable as proven by the meltdown....?

Depends on your definition of freedom....

Capitalism wasn't unfettered. Government was in it up to its elbows. And that's why the meltdown happened.

I already asked if he could say GSE. But I guess that went over his head.

Already answered. In your rabid desire to get into a game of oneupmanship, you forgot to read my last, thus making yourself look like a fool....

 

[boedicca]

Note to Dr. Gump:

You would greatly benefit from the reading and careful study of [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277769716&sr=8-1]The Creature from Jekyll Island[/ame].

Just sayin'.

 

[Dr Grump]

What a fantasy...

There has not been "unfettered capitalism " nor has any such thing been as "proven by the meltdown."

If there are libraries where you are, see if you can find a book about Theodore Roosevelt, the 'Trust Buster'...

Should you require it, I'd been happy to instruct you on the provenance of the 'meltdown,' and the governmental role therein.

America is one of the most unregulated, capatilistic countries in the western world.

And no, the only thing I have ever learned from you on this messageboard is that you are a partisan hack with a skewed world view on the political and financial landscapes....