"Heller vs DC" decision thread....

[rdamurphy]

Robert

[Andy J]

Obama reminds me of the "post turtles" you would see as you ride down a back country road.

For some of you city folks, Let me tell you what a "post turtle" is.

Sometimes as your driving down a rural road, you will see a turtle, balanced on top of a fence post

You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a moron put him up there to begin with.

[Vince]

Promises? Oaths? Sacred Duty? Naaa. Thats Crap!

Well, Vince, I understand you're from New England, and actual education in the US Constitution is pretty lacking in LiberalLand, so allow me to help you understand what it actually says instead of what you think it says:

Article 2, section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...

There are NO Constitutional restrictions on this power. Period. End of sentence. Congress has the right to declare war, and provide funding for the war, neither the Congress or SCOTUS has any power, Constitutionally, to interfere in the execution, command, direction, or conduct of that war. Period. Why don't you make yourself useful, and show me any of what you're purporting in the actual US Constitution?

And if you think Saddam "hated" al Qaida, you've either been spending way too much time reading the NYT or you knew him personally.

In the mean time, please spare me your condescending, insulting, ridicule. I get sick and tired of ignoramusus such as yourself spouting off the stupidity they've heard without ever making the effort to crack open a book or thinking for yourself. And, no, I didn't raise my hand and swear an oath to the Untied States of America. Mainly because I was educated enough to be able to pronounce and spell it correctly, as in United States of America.
Republicans are about as diametrically opposed to being communists as they could possibly get, you might as well talk about the North Pole being in Antartica. Of course, given the ignorance displayed in your post you probably believe that, too.
BTW, did you know that the average polar bear devours 30 penguins a day? I thought not...
Oh, yeah, you might need this to help you understand what I've written...
And it's "Iraq." With a 'Q.' Not "Irag." And it's "fourth," not "forth." Sheeesh.
Robert

Point by point (and I will try to avoid name calling and being a 'spell checker)

1. "Well, Vince, I understand you're from New England, ....."
Well you understand wrong, I'm not.

2. "Article 2, section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief ......"
Sorry Robert, but when he took the oath of office he swore to "Protect and Defend to Constitution of the United States of America not subvert it.

3. "And if you think Saddam "hated" al Qaida, you've either been spending way too much time reading the NYT or you knew him personally."
Wrong again. I dont read the NYT. Read up on "Al Quida in Iraq before 911" You can read cant you? A little research may help here.

4. "In the mean time, please spare me your condescending, insulting, ridicule. ......."
Oh, insulting and condescending am I? YOU BET I AM!!
You took an oath. You now reject that oath in the name of some war on terror.
I have nothing BUT contempt for you. You are not fit to call yourself an American.
I dont give a crap if you spent 20 years in the military, if you dont live up to the OATH YOU TOOK, then you are, to me anyway, less than the lowest snake.
In fact, I would rate a snake FAR above you.

5. "And, no, I didn't raise my hand and swear an oath to the [B]Untied States of America. ......."
Ahhh! So no lets roll on with some personal attacks shalL we, hmmmm what can I get him on OH YEAH!!!
Spelling..... WOW,... and keyboard finger checks....OH MAN, I REALLY NAILED HIM THIS TIME DINT I!!!

And a nature lesson too? What a fountain of information you are Robert.
Polar bears eating habits. Right on the subject are we? What a great try at mis-direction. What do YOU eat Rovert? Not that I or anyone cares. Sheesh.
Dictionarys....Polar bears ....Spelling ( Oops,sorry I mispelled yr name above but I'll let you correct it) .....mistakes .....Penguins . ....PENGUINS ....PENGUINS ????
My God Robert, what ARE you smoking? I've heard that messing with PCP or crystal meth can make you feel this way but I have no direct evidence.

I would respectfully suggest you move someplace where human rights are routinely trampled on. Cuba maybe? One of the African countrys may suit you. How about you becoming an Information Extractor (torturer) for the Bushe Boys at Gitmo?
I can, if you wish send you a supply of Ladybugs so you can get some orgasmic pleasure pulling their legs and wings off.

Bottom Lines;
You took an oath to Protect and Defend The Constitution Of the United States of America.
Now you reject that same oath.
You are NOT fit to call yourself an American.

Robert, you are truly, truly pathetic.

[Andy J]

Heller News...

It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C

by James Oliphant
The Supreme Court's flair for the dramatic is intact.
Monday marked the last scheduled day of the term and it came and went without any of the remaining high-profile cases being handed down.
The court has already announced it will release opinions on Wednesday and possibly Thursday or Friday.

What's left? Start with the eagerly anticipated decision on Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, the first time in almost 70 years the justices have grappled with the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Thomas Goldstein, a Supreme Court advocate who runs a must-read blog for court-watchers called ScotusBlog, plays a bit of a parlor game in trying to figure out which justice is writing which decision. By his reckoning, which you below, Justice Antonin Scalia is likely writing the controlling opinion in the D.C. gun case.

That, of course, is bad news for those who who favor strong gun control restrictions. Scalia is likely to take a more absolutist stance on the Second Amendment than say a more moderate justice such as Anthony Kennedy or even Samuel Alito. Which means if Scalia is writing the opinion, you can pretty much bet your bottom dollar that the gun-ban will be overturned.

But on what grounds? And how sweeping will the ruling be? It's entirely possible, for instance, that Scalia may only be writing a plurality opinion and not a majority one. The difference? Justices concur and dissent from sections of opinions. And it's possible there are a majority of votes on the court to overturn the ban, but the reasons for doing so could differ, perhaps wildly. And a plurality opinion carries less weight than a clear, declarative opinion from a majority of the court.

Still, it is the law. And an opinion from Scalia will certainly contain enough Second Amendment jurisprudence to send shockwaves throughout both the gun-rights and gun-control communities, not to mention, perhaps, the presidential campaigns.
We may know as early as Wednesday morning the answer to these questions. Then again, given the court's sense of the dramatic, perhaps not.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wild-opinion-speculation/

[muskokaandtahoe]

Hey Vince, don't mince words w/ us here at the yard, tell us, unvarnished, what you really think!

[Vince]

Polar Bears Eat Penguins? .....where may I ask?

........snip mindless ranting..........
Republicans are about as diametrically opposed to being communists as they could possibly get, you might as well talk about the North Pole being in Antartica. Of course, given the ignorance displayed in your post you probably believe that, too.

BTW, did you know that the average polar bear devours 30 penguins a day? I thought not...

Robert

Sorry for the additional post on this rant but I just noticed this gem:

This is really sad as to how someone could be SO uninformed on almost every subject.

Here is another gem of a quote from our resident diatribe and vomit spouter, Robert the Rash;
BTW, did you know that the average polar bear devours 30 penguins a day? I thought not...

One point at a time Robert so even YOU can understand.
1. Antartica is located at the South Pole
2. There are many species of Penguins and Seals that make their home there.
3 There are NO Polar Bears in Antartica!
4. Polar Bears inhabit the regions surrounding the ARTIC.
5. This region is called the North Polar Region.
6. There are NO penguins in the regions surroung the North Pole (except in zoos) Got that Robert? None, nada.
7. The main diet of the Polar Bear is the Artic Seal NOT Penguins.

Robert, do try to get your facts straight before showing your ignorence before the entire world.

Check your meds.

[muskokaandtahoe]

> .... will certainly contain enough Second Amendment jurisprudence to send shockwaves throughout both the gun-rights and gun-control communities,
> not to mention, perhaps, the presidential campaigns.

There are times when it's best to let sleeping dogs lie and I believe this is one of them. There are so many people w/ strong opinions, one way or the other, this case will cause a national upset.

Funny tho, the actual data, from what I understand, does not support the arguments of either gun controlers or non controllers. Most gun owners are middle aged, rural, white guys w/ no propensity for crime, who usually hunt. It's perfectly reasonable for those people to take offense at the suggestion they should be subject to gun controls. And the typical criminal gun user is not white, is young, urban, and does not hunt game. He commits 12-16 crimes / year, usuall against his urban neighbors. To get him and his guns, police would have to sweep whole cities on a regular basis, and make use of hardline, 100% checks on each gun sale as the legal basis for siezing what's found in those sweeps. Who, from the first group I described, is gonna support all that and how do you square it against the law as we have it?

See the problem is there are two completely seperate groups of innocent people, with completely unlike demographics, locations, and behaviors, bound by a single set of laws. One group is under seige and the other not -- completely different environment. North or SE Washington D.C. is not anything like rural Virginia. Nothing at all. Those communities do need a solution and jumping up and down on cheering for overturning it, when you yourself have no similar concerns, comes across to me as remarkably selfish.

Anyway, count me with the controllers. I used to sell guns. First rural, then in an urban setting. Two COMPLETELY different markets. We ALL need to find a way to spare the decent rural hunters from undue burdens and to control the access to guns of the indecent urban criminals. I doubt this case, whatever the decision, is going to do that.

[Vince]

Hey Vince, don't mince words w/ us here at the yard, tell us, unvarnished, what you really think!

Strict interpetation of the Constitution is all.

Mess with my Constitution and there's gonna be trouble.

Dave,
Hey, I really think all the 'detainees' at Gitmo deserve to be slowly garroted and am tempted to even do it myself. Most of them are lowlife scum that would IMHO, be better off in a dumpster.
But as bad as they may be, I cannot deny them the rights our forefathers died for as much as I would LIKE to.
You see, my WANTS or my LIKES have nothing to do with it. Without laws comes anarchy and chaos.

But then I stop and ask myself; Are we not a Nation of Laws?
Do we not have a set of documents that has guided us for over 200 years?

I do not take that lightly as you may have guessed by now.

[pmcn]

See the problem is there are two completely seperate groups of innocent people, with completely unlike demographics, locations, and behaviors, bound by a single set of laws. One group is under seige and the other not -- completely different environment. North or SE Washington D.C. is not anything like rural Virginia. Nothing at all. Those communities do need a solution and jumping up and down on cheering for overturning it, when you yourself have no similar concerns, comes across to me as remarkably selfish.

Anyway, count me with the controllers. I used to sell guns. First rural, then in an urban setting. Two COMPLETELY different markets. We ALL need to find a way to spare the decent rural hunters from undue burdens and to control the access to guns of the indecent urban criminals. I doubt this case, whatever the decision, is going to do that.

A difference you did not mention is that criminals do not obtain fire arms in any legal means, therefore they can not be controlled. Gun control only works with law abiding citizens. What is a crimials biggest fear? An armed victim who knows how to use their gun. An armed society is a polite society rural or urban. Just look at what happened in Great Britain an Austrailia after enactment of strict gun control. Criminals still have guns and know that Joe Citizen does not. A firearm makes a 80 pound woman as powerful as a 250 pound man. From my stand point, hand guns are more vital in urban settings than rifles in rural areas.

Paul

[muskokaandtahoe]

> Hey, I really think all the 'detainees' at Gitmo deserve to be slowly garroted and am tempted to even do it myself. Most of them are lowlife scum that
> would IMHO, be better off in a dumpster.
> But as bad as they may be, I cannot deny them the rights our forefathers died for as much as I would LIKE to.

I do not think I've read an explanation written by you that covers why foreign persons, taken in combat, not protected by treaty, are due the rights of Americans under the US Consitution. IIRC, in WWII POW's didn't have those rights.

[Vince]

Harvest their Organs for Transplant

> .... will certainly contain enough Second Amendment jurisprudence to send shockwaves throughout both the gun-rights and gun-control communities,
> not to mention, perhaps, the presidential campaigns.
........".

Yeah Dave, it will have an effect for sure.

How to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals?

Simplified; If you use a gun in the commision of ANY crime you get executed. PERIOD!

Execution to be carried out humanly in a hospital where said criminals if any useful organs will be harvested for transplant for use by productive members of society.

This way the criminal 'Pays his (or her) debt to society.

Not my idea. Larry Nivin was the originator over 20 years ago.

But I like it!

[muskokaandtahoe]

> A difference you did not mention is that criminals do not obtain fire arms in any legal means, therefore they can not be controlled.

yes they can if you're willing to do wide area sweeps, searching everything and arresting anybody, w/ essentiallyt a fill in the blank warrant. But if you cannot do that, then what can you do?

> What is a crimials biggest fear? An armed victim who knows how to use their gun.

I doubt very much you know the answer to your own question. I for one find it particularlly silly. You presume the victim was not taken by surprise. That they have their gun on hand. That they are willing to use it... as in there is no hostage. That the perp didn't arrive on the scene w/ gun drawn. etc. etc etc. Your answer that has no meaning or relevance to reality whatsoever. Urban residents who wanted by buy guns from me, more often than not, were completely unwilling to use them under any circumstances. Many did not even want ammo. They wanted something to wave in protest, hoping for the best. The idea some criminal would find (or take away) their own gun and threaten them with it was particularly frightful. These folks -- more than half that I dealt with -- were, with no change in attitude, not qualified to own a fiream. Knowledge of use has nothing to do with it. Willingness and circumstantial ability to use it does... and neither of those are going be obtained with a purchase and some classes.

[cp5513]

> I do not think I've read an explanation written by you that covers why foreign persons, taken in combat, not protected by treaty, are due the rights of Americans under the US Consitution. IIRC, in WWII POW's didn't have those rights.

100% correct ...POW's detentions are governed by the Geneva Conventions, which is not being granted to the Gitmo prisoners.

[Vince]

> Hey, I really think all the 'detainees' at Gitmo deserve to be slowly garroted and am tempted to even do it myself. Most of them are lowlife scum that
> would IMHO, be better off in a dumpster.
> But as bad as they may be, I cannot deny them the rights our forefathers died for as much as I would LIKE to.

I do not think I've read an explanation written by you that covers why foreign persons, taken in combat, not protected by treaty, are due the rights of Americans under the US Consitution. IIRC, in WWII POW's didn't have those rights.

Geneva Convention maybe? Sorry but I'm no expert. The recent decision by the Supreme Court did NOT give those bozo's full constitutional rights. Just the right to have the evidence heard in front of a trial judge.

And one wonders, with the decision, the Bushies are scrambling to re-write the 'evidence'.
I wonder why they would have to do that?

Bottom line: If ANY person attacks me, my family or MY COUNTRY, I'm gonna kill them.
But if I capture them they will receive a fair trial.
Thats the law of the my land and I will abide by and defend those laws.

Basically I feel that once it was learned that OSBL was in Tora Bora or whatever it's called I would have ordered a Thermonuclear strike and screw what the rest of the world thought.

I lost MANY friends who happened to work for the Port Authority of NY and NJ in the computer room on the 78th floor of WT1.
My neice Lisa watched in horror from her office in the Municipal Building as people jumped rather than suffer being burned alive.
Nuke em I say!

[jtr1962]

But if I capture them they will receive a fair trial.
Thats the law of the my land and I will abide by and defend those laws.

"Killed while trying to escape" is a nice, neat way around that. Don't think this won't be the fate of many of those bozos incarcerated at Gitmo now that the SCOTUS ruled they have "rights".

Basically I feel that once it was learned that OSBL was in Tora Bora or whatever it's called I would have ordered a Thermonuclear strike and screw what the rest of the world thought.

I felt that Tora Bora would have been an excellent time to try our tactical nukes. It's a pity we were more concerned about world opinion. And I feel the standing policy of the US should be if you harbor terrorists hostile against the US we reserve the right to take out your country via ICBMs without prior notice.

I lost MANY friends who happened to work for the Port Authority of NY and NJ in the computer room on the 78th floor of WT1.

Lost a friend on that day, a guy I knew since high school. He was married a few years ago, and never even saw his first child. That big hole in the ground at Chambers Street isn't so pretty, either (been there quite a few times, including 2 weeks after the attacks when you could still smell the burning flesh). The consequences of this attack to those who trained and harbored these terrorists should have been enough to make anyone else think long and hard before doing it again.