Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Oh I know. I find it hilarious that someone like Scalia would say what he did in that article. 60 minutes ran a really interesting piece on his life story and his thoughts on constitutional law. He's a person who thinks the US constitution is a dead document and that it's interpretation can't be based upon what the founders thought or what it means today but only in what is physically written down. Yet, in the excerpt of his decision, he does exactly the opposite of what he preaches.

I find no humour in it other than correcting your mistake(s).

Neverthelass, it is the majority opinion and has the full weight of the SCOTUS behind it.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

  • Replies 651
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I find no humour in it other than correcting your mistake(s).

Neverthelass, it is the majority opinion and has the full weight of the SCOTUS behind it.

As do the dissenting opinions.

Posted

As do the dissenting opinions.

Incorrect. The majority make the law, the minoity publish their opinion.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted (edited)

Incorrect. The majority make the law, the minoity publish their opinion.

I beg to differ with you. It isn't unusual for a variety of dissenting opinions with no particular opinion presenting a majority view. Go back to school.

Edited by pinko
Posted

I beg to differ with you. It isn't unusual for a variety of dissenting opinions with no particular opinion presenting a majority view. Go back to school.

Beg all you want. The decision was 5 to 4 in favour of the fundamental right to bear arms.

Leran to reed.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

Learn to spell, pal.

:lol:

You must be very short...

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

Oh I know. I find it hilarious that someone like Scalia would say what he did in that article. 60 minutes ran a really interesting piece on his life story and his thoughts on constitutional law. He's a person who thinks the US constitution is a dead document and that it's interpretation can't be based upon what the founders thought or what it means today but only in what is physically written down. Yet, in the excerpt of his decision, he does exactly the opposite of what he preaches.

Off topic but just a quick aside that I thought you might find of interest about Scala’s views..women aren’t people; life, liberty and property can be denied us along with a whole host of other things, like choice.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-07/women-aren-t-people-under-scalia-s-constitution-commentary-by-ann-woolner.html

Posted

"This is a very difficult time for us. We ask the media to respect our privacy. There are no words that can possibly express how we feel. We wish that there were, so we could make you feel better. We don't understand why this happened. It may not make any difference, but we wish that we could change the heinous events of Saturday. We care very deeply about the victims and their families. We are so very sorry for their loss. Thank you. The Loughner family."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jared-loughner-parents-20110112,0,33356.story

Posted

So sad that the democrats have to use this for political gain.

So sad that Republicans can't take responsiblity for their actions.

Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan?

Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...

Guest TrueMetis
Posted

What a person would do in such circumstances is really an unknown. No doubt if I felt my family was threatened I would do what I considered needed to be done to address such a situation.

And it would probably be something really stupid, no offense meant but most people just aren't trained for those types of situations. When you are in a situation where you or your love ones are in real danger your rational brain literally turns off, so you are acting totally on instinct. This is why police and the military train so much so they go on training instead of instinct in those situations. so it can be seen why people might not think guns are a great idea because they will most likely be used when you are not thinking rationally.

Posted

And I think this is relevant :D

Here’s a few from the last election cycle……..and these are just a few of the candidates, I don’t have the time for the pundits or bloggers.

- The GOP Senate candidate who recommended "Second Amendment remedies". Sharron Angle

-- The GOP Congressional candidate who fired shots at a silhouette with his opponent's initials on it Robert Lowrey

-- The GOP Congressional candidate who declared, "If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to 'thin' the herd." Brad Goehring

-- The GOP Congressional candidate who said he considered the violent overthrow of the United States to government an "option" and added that political violence is "on the table"? Stephen Broden

Posted

They have...as there are now 40 Right-To-Carry states.

Including Arizona. I guess it doesn't work.

Sucks to be proven wrong from the very context of the debate.

But I don't expect you to figure that out.

How could you?

Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan?

Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...

Posted

Including Arizona. I guess it doesn't work.

Sucks to be proven wrong from the very context of the debate.

But I don't expect you to figure that out.

How could you?

What's your problem? RTC states passed the laws regardless of "the debate".

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

RTC states passed the laws regardless of "the debate".

And, obviously, regardless of the effectiveness.

Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan?

Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...

Posted (edited)

And, obviously, regardless of the effectiveness.

It had nothing to do with "effectiveness". The point of the legislation is to designate "shall issue" concealed carry criteria for law abiding citizens. Generally this means a background check and certified training. Target practice at the range is encouraged!

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,908
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    miawilliams3232
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Benz earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • stindles earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • stindles earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...