You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Second amendment

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

62 Replies - 2624 Views - Last Post: 03 January 2009 - 02:43 AM

#1 skyhawk133  Icon User is offline

  • Head DIC Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 1866
  • View blog
  • Posts: 20,278
  • Joined: 17-March 01

You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 09:07 AM

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up because it's a pretty hot issue this week. Yesterday the supreme court voted 5-4 to uphold the right to bear arms in the District of Columbia. The ruling had a much bigger impact than just Washington DC though. It was about upholding the Second Amendment.

Gun advocates called it a victory. I see it differently.

This should have been a 9-0 vote. It's the second amendment. Not some random law. America was 1 vote away from losing a right granted to "the people" by the founding fathers. Your government was 1 vote away from taking away firearms from law abiding citizens.

The same group that BARELY upheld the right to bear arms also sent a pretty strong message to child rapists. States no longer have the right to execute repeat child rapists because the "punishment doesn't fit the crime". I got news for you, if you rape a child, you might as well have killed him/her because their life is destroyed. You've taken away their childhood and made it so they can never trust anyone again.


Remember, the supreme court is a LIFETIME appointment. And you don't get to vote who makes it in. Your president appoints them. Vote smart in 2008. The next president will probably get to appoint at least 2 new justices. That could easily swing that 5-4 vote in the other direction.

Is This A Good Question/Topic? 0
  • +

Replies To: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

#2 tody4me  Icon User is offline

  • Banned
  • member icon

Reputation: 12
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,398
  • Joined: 12-April 06

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 09:23 AM

Quote

This should have been a 9-0 vote.

Agreed! I thought the supreme court's job is to interpret the laws and the constitution being one of the governing documents that they are sworn to uphold, was shocked about this today when I heard about it as well.

Quote

I got news for you, if you rape a child, you might as well have killed him/her because their life is destroyed.

If someone were to rape one of my kids, either as a child or otherwise, they wouldn't be too worried about the quality of life they would have once i got through with them, because there would be a non-surgical sex change done to the person (although a hot metallic object would be properly placed in the location in question).

This post has been edited by tody4me: 27 June 2008 - 09:23 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#3 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4496
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,404
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 09:23 AM

I would have been ok with that.

edit-the guns part, not the rape part. but i mean, it's not rape if you yell surprise, so as long as protocol is followed.

This post has been edited by supersloth: 27 June 2008 - 09:24 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#4 tody4me  Icon User is offline

  • Banned
  • member icon

Reputation: 12
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,398
  • Joined: 12-April 06

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 09:32 AM

Quote

but i mean, it's not rape if you yell surprise, so as long as protocol is followed.

Protocols like cocking a gun, pulling back the trigger, saying surprise?

This post has been edited by tody4me: 27 June 2008 - 09:32 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#5 Thorian  Icon User is offline

  • Pirate Medic
  • member icon

Reputation: 22
  • View blog
  • Posts: 5,904
  • Joined: 06-June 02

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 09:37 AM

Ehh. The 2nd amendement decision had to go 5-4 you have 5 conservative judges and 4 liberal ones. They had to represent their respective parties. I knew that Bushie would be stacking the deck for the 2 slots that were coming up last election hence why Kerry was trying to look like a good ole boy duck hunting.

However the end result of the 157 page ruling can be summed up as such. Self Defense is a Constitutionally Guaranteed right. Where as before it was only the right to overthrow the government.

Dont worry though because Directive 51 will be called soon and all your rights will be forfet.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#6 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4496
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,404
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 09:56 AM

habeas corpus was suspended and no one gives a shit.

take away things that go bang and people take notice.

fuck me.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#7 baavgai  Icon User is offline

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 5780
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,595
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 10:27 AM

View Postsupersloth, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 12:56 PM, said:

habeas corpus was suspended and no one gives a shit.

take away things that go bang and people take notice.


Have to agree with that. The current regime has eviscerated the constitution in ways beyond counting. You can treat citizen like war criminals as long you let them keep the toys that go bang? Curiously, the point of the 2nd amendment was for the populous to be able to defend themselves against not just others, but against a repressive government. In modern times, such a defense seems trivial at best.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#8 bflosabre91  Icon User is offline

  • go sabres

Reputation: 105
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,439
  • Joined: 22-February 08

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 11:50 AM

the right to bare arms was written when? in the 1700s? things are different now, and i personally dont object to any amendment changes done to better suite society today.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#9 modi123_1  Icon User is offline

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 8955
  • View blog
  • Posts: 33,571
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 12:06 PM

View Postskyhawk133, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 11:07 AM, said:

The same group that BARELY upheld the right to bear arms also sent a pretty strong message to child rapists. States no longer have the right to execute repeat child rapists because the "punishment doesn't fit the crime". I got news for you, if you rape a child, you might as well have killed him/her because their life is destroyed. You've taken away their childhood and made it so they can never trust anyone again.


Wow.. That's a pretty vicious thing to say. I never get why folks start proclaiming rape is worse than death. I mean seriously, what the fuck. People are conditioned knowing that death is the end all be all... The last stop at the end of the line… and all that rot… but now you tell folks who were raped.. "yeah you exist in a limbo that is beyond death. There's no coming back, no dealing with it, nothing.. since you know.. you are beyond the end point of death." Wow, way to provide hope and comfort to the victim. That sort of fatalistic thinking is repugnant.

Now before folks get all up in arms, yes… rape is horrible and horrendous, but the language used to discuss it is what I am questioning. You have already given up on the victim, refusing to acknowledge the will to adapt, survive, and thrive.

Recap: rape is atrocious, but it is not worse than death.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#10 no2pencil  Icon User is online

  • Toubabo Koomi
  • member icon

Reputation: 5191
  • View blog
  • Posts: 26,899
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 12:49 PM

We've been proactively giving our rights away in this country for a long time. Issue one & the patriot act both come to mind as recent events. The long & the short of it is this : American's will gladly give up their rights if they get a false sense of security out of it.

View Postmodi123_1, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 03:06 PM, said:

I never get why folks start proclaiming rape is worse than death. I mean seriously, what the fuck. People are conditioned knowing that death is the end all be all...

Until you have experienced it, then you have no ability to make that judgement.

A snippet from Deep Down Trauma Hounds by Skinny Puppy comes to mind

Quote

the message screams it's purity that those with no rights display the right to have no life do have respect they must accept a world committing suicide. Do you respect a world committing suicide?

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#11 modi123_1  Icon User is offline

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 8955
  • View blog
  • Posts: 33,571
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 01:25 PM

View Postno2pencil, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 02:49 PM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 03:06 PM, said:

I never get why folks start proclaiming rape is worse than death. I mean seriously, what the fuck. People are conditioned knowing that death is the end all be all...

Until you have experienced it, then you have no ability to make that judgement.


That's a bullshit statement, but a not too unexpected cop out (not necessarily from you per say, but from the internetz in general). Packaging folks and placing them in a limbo outside the great end is telling them that they have no hope of recovery, no hope of living, and SHOULD have no hope. That's incorrect. That would fly in the face of the speakers that came through back when I was in high school discussing their rape, their survival through the trauma, and their road to returning to a semi sense of the normalcy. Not to mention the countless folks getting by in their daily lives after being a victim of rape some point earlier in their lives.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#12 no2pencil  Icon User is online

  • Toubabo Koomi
  • member icon

Reputation: 5191
  • View blog
  • Posts: 26,899
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 01:37 PM

View Postmodi123_1, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 04:25 PM, said:

Packaging folks and placing them in a limbo outside the great end is telling them that they have no hope of recovery, no hope of living, and SHOULD have no hope.

I never said no one should have hope. In fact I said no one should pass judgement on a situation they have not experienced. How's that a bullshit statement?

You're putting words in my mouth.

Some people recover, some don't. That's a fact.

I could tell you how hard it would hurt if I smashed your hand with a hammer. But nothing would prepare you for the pain you would feel of it actually happening. Once it's over, you could go tell someone else how much it hurt. But they wouldn't know until they experienced it. All I'm saying is, you can't actually make a judgement on a feeling that you've never experienced.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#13 modi123_1  Icon User is offline

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 8955
  • View blog
  • Posts: 33,571
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 01:59 PM

View Postno2pencil, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 03:37 PM, said:

View Postmodi123_1, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 04:25 PM, said:

Packaging folks and placing them in a limbo outside the great end is telling them that they have no hope of recovery, no hope of living, and SHOULD have no hope.

I never said no one should have hope. In fact I said no one should pass judgement on a situation they have not experienced. How's that a bullshit statement?

You're putting words in my mouth.

Some people recover, some don't. That's a fact.

I could tell you how hard it would hurt if I smashed your hand with a hammer. But nothing would prepare you for the pain you would feel of it actually happening. Once it's over, you could go tell someone else how much it hurt. But they wouldn't know until they experienced it. All I'm saying is, you can't actually make a judgement on a feeling that you've never experienced.


How can one speculate on things that they have never experenced? Really? Empathy tends to take care of that... granted you will never have the full impact as living through the event, but one can imagine at some level and go from there. How else are laws determined, and judgements passed? I know that getting my hand whacked by your hammer is going to hurt something fierce so I will avoid it at all costs. I just made a judgement based on a potential feeling I hopefully will never have to experience. The phrase 'walk a mile in their shoes' indicates that empathy and some imagination allow you to see things from different angles, make judgements on it, and alter your course of life. It happens every day.

Yes, some recover and some do not, but we do not know who will or will not. Instead of treating them as if they will not up front let us give them the bennifit of the doubt?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 Thorian  Icon User is offline

  • Pirate Medic
  • member icon

Reputation: 22
  • View blog
  • Posts: 5,904
  • Joined: 06-June 02

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 02:02 PM

View Postbflosabre91, on 27 Jun, 2008 - 01:50 PM, said:

the right to bare arms was written when? in the 1700s? things are different now, and i personally dont object to any amendment changes done to better suite society today.



Then lets hope that Directive 51 never gets used because it will suspend the whole constitution and you can end up with Bushie for life. After all it would be for the good of the state err scociety.

I would suggest that you stop reading the teachings of Mussolini and study the articles of confederation along with the other documentation that our country was founded on not this "Case Law" that gets taught today.

This post has been edited by Thorian: 27 June 2008 - 02:31 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#15 Nykc  Icon User is offline

  • Gentleman of Leisure
  • member icon

Reputation: 726
  • View blog
  • Posts: 8,638
  • Joined: 14-September 07

Re: You were 1 vote away from losing your rights

Posted 27 June 2008 - 06:46 PM

From the Columbus Dispatch -

Quote

Gun rights affirmed
With 5-4 decision, Supreme Court attempts to erase ambiguity
Friday, June 27, 2008 3:13 AM
By Jonathan Riskind
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Related items

* The Hot Issue: Do you think having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be or a more dangerous place to be?
* Read the full text of the Supreme Court's ruling (PDF)

Firearms laws

A sampling of Ohio's gun laws:

• Only the state and Congress can regulate the ownership, possession, sale, purchase, transport, storage or carrying of firearms and ammunition.

• People must be at least 18 years old to buy firearms and at least 21 to buy handguns.

• Ohioans may carry concealed weapons if they have a permit from a county sheriff.

• Felons, drug addicts, alcoholics and mentally ill people are not allowed to own guns.

• People cannot use a gun while they're drunk.

• It's generally illegal to have a loaded gun in a school zone, in a car, on a boat or in a bar.

• Firing a gun is generally illegal in parks, cemeteries, schools, churches and homes and on highways.

Source: Ohio Revised Code
WASHINGTON -- For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly ruled yesterday that Americans have an individual right to bear arms.

The 5-4 ruling struck down a Washington, D.C., ban on having a handgun even in one's home but left in place common restrictions on carrying firearms in "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.

The decision on the high court's final day before its summer break invalidated a gun ban that is more than three decades old. It represents the most definitive Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment, which reads:

"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."

The ruling would seem to maintain the status quo in Ohio, where the Republican-controlled legislature favors few limits on gun-owners' rights and Gov. Ted Strickland bucks fellow Democrats on many gun issues.

The court said many local restrictions -- bans on ownership by felons or the mentally ill, for example -- are constitutional. But a state law in place since last year wiped out the power of Ohio cities to enact their own gun rules. That measure is being challenged in the Ohio Supreme Court.

Since March 2007, Columbus has not enforced an assault-weapons ban or a requirement that dealers report every gun sale to police. A plan to ban concealed weapons in city parks was shelved when the state law took effect.

Strickland praised the ruling in a statement: "The right to bear arms is a fundamental civil right like the freedoms of speech and to vote. And it's important that governments at all levels not infringe on those fundamental rights."

Although Columbus had never attempted to go as far as the nation's capital in banning handguns, Mayor Michael B. Coleman supported that city's right to make its own rules, spokesman Dan Williamson said.

"(The ruling) deprives the right to cities to take the steps necessary to protect their citizens," he said.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states in its introduction that the court holds, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

But the opinion goes on to stress that, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," and states that have passed concealed-carry laws, for instance, are on firm constitutional grounds.

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The opinion also struck down a D.C. requirement that all guns have trigger locks.

Joining Scalia in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito. Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

Writing for the minority, Stevens said that, while the "Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several states to maintain a well-regulated militia … (it) should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes."

Stevens added that the court's majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." But, "such evidence is nowhere to be found."

Washington, D.C., had one of the nation's most stringent gun bans. The case that wound up in the Supreme Court started when a security guard named Dick Heller sued the city after it turned down his attempt to have a handgun in his home on Capitol Hill, not far from the Supreme Court building.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia also had ruled for Heller, saying a complete gun ban is unconstitutional.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain praised the high court's decision.

"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right-- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," the Arizona senator said in a statement.

The reaction was more mixed from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, criticized this year for saying that many people in rural areas cling to guns and religion partially out of a sense of bitterness.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures," the Illinois senator said in a statement.

Gun-rights advocates and sympathetic lawmakers were quick to praise the decision.

"As a gun owner and NRA member, I appreciate what a historic event this is," said Rep. Zack Space, D-Dover, one of the members of Congress who had signed on to a gun-rights friend-of-the-court brief. "This is a victory for gun owners everywhere, not just D.C., because it reaffirms our constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. Gun owners' rights became stronger today."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic had come in 1939, but constitutional scholars say it did not squarely answer the question of individual vs. collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The Associated Press and Dispatch reporter Robert Vitale contributed to this story.


One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

Flame on!! But it is good to see something good in the news once in a while. Remember this statement - it is the criminals that already have their guns, the government is making it harder for decent citizens to afford protection from the criminals.

B) :pirate: :ph34r: :crazy: :angry: :blink:
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »