Lt./Gov Brown Called MDSF Extremists!

[teratos]

I hate to get all Dr Phil on ya.... But "Hows that working out for you?

Remains to be seen. Not there yet. There are multiple fail safe mechanisms in the Constitution. We are still working with the more palatable ones. Overall, I think it is going well. Gun ownership is up, the youth are starting to look away from the left etc. It's a work in progress and will span generations. Obama may be the best thing that ever happened to the Country.

 

[Brooklyn]

what proof do I have? none, since the people who who the constitution are dead. So, I'll look to Scalia (not exactly a flaming liberal)

Now, back to the Second Amendment. I’m sure that pro-gun extremists know very well about Scalia’s famous opinion in Heller (2008), which dramatically expanded gun rights. But even in that decision, Scalia himself said that Second Amendment protections could apply only to weapons “in common use at the time.” Chris Wallace asked Scalia in 2012 about semiautomatic weapons and extended magazines, and he said: “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”

http://theusconstitution.org/news/there-are-no-‘absolute’-rights

The Supreme Court case striking down the DC handgun ban said that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." The majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which was written by Scalia and joined by the Supreme Court's most conservative members, stated:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[...]
Nothing in our opinion should 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.
Supreme Court has upheld gun restrictions. In his majority opinion, Scalia listed gun restrictions that the courts have long upheld as constitutional, including "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons," prohibitions on "the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons' " such as an M-16 rifle, and "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."
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/05/13/scalia-agrees-with-kagan-that-second-amendment/164680

Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12#ixzz3GTAedYqC

But writing for the 5-4 majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia said the right to bear arms is not absolute. Scalia's words carry considerable weight because he is a conservative champion, and perhaps the high court's most ardent exponent of the right to bear arms.

​

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...t-unlimited/UPI-80201355648700/#ixzz3GTAt4s6G
[/INDENT]

yeah, I will admit that this isn't the proof you're referring to, and he may be referring to rocket launchers an such; it does support my point that 2A may not be as black and white as some of us hope.

But if Scalia if saying that Assault Weapons can have banns or regulations on them, then i'm sticking to my 'it isn't cut and dry'.

just something to chew onn and who/what is ELIZA?

Good bye.

 

[Brooklyn]

I hate to get all Dr Phil on ya.... But "Hows that working out for you?

Just fine thanks . Been at this awhile , you?

 

[Brooklyn]

I don't understand the original intent?

First, I'd argue the ONLY people that can definitively answer that the original intent was, and dead....

Second, *MY* understanding of the original intent really doesn't have much practical implication does it? Then again, neither does your understanding... unless you're a sitting judge or a member of congress.

Third, I never said 2A was never compromised, I said there HAS to be a compromise to get anywhere... Sorry, welcome to politics.

Forth, the '94 AWB was in effect for 10 years yet miraculously was NEVER ruled unconstitutional, i find that rather telling. If 2A is untouchable then that AWB should have been struck down within hours but it wasn't. Are we going to ignore that small fact?

go compromise... get back to us. Bye.

 

[Mr H]

what proof do I have? none, since the people who who the constitution are dead.

Three words...

Federalist Papers.


Seeya.

 

[Sveiks]

Until the pro 2a crowd realizes, accepts, and formulates a plan for the 'people' and stop making this a right vs left issue the results will not change.



You can quote or reference any document or speech you like, but that don't mean squat.



We need 'the people' on our side, not just the repubs... Everyone. Look at gay marriage, that was turned in an issue that was bigger that 'gay rights' and you see the results. We need a mainstream populist platform, not a 1790s one. For example,go tell a 22 year old they can't do something that is written in the constitution. They'll do it just for spite, that doesn't mean they're 'Moving right' it means they're following their gut.



And if it makes you feel better to blow me off with 'see ya' or 'nuff said' remember this. Cuz in 10 years you'll be bit him about the same thing.



You don't like the rules? Change them. You don't like the ppl making the laws? Replace them. But you can not deny any point I've made as being a valid argument from the other side. Stick your fingers in your ears all you want, that doesn't change the situation.

 

[Mr H]

...

 

[Brooklyn]

Until the pro 2a crowd realizes, accepts, and formulates a plan for the 'people' and stop making this a right vs left issue the results will not change.



You can quote or reference any document or speech you like, but that don't mean squat.



We need 'the people' on our side, not just the repubs... Everyone. Look at gay marriage, that was turned in an issue that was bigger that 'gay rights' and you see the results. We need a mainstream populist platform, not a 1790s one. For example,go tell a 22 year old they can't do something that is written in the constitution. They'll do it just for spite, that doesn't mean they're 'Moving right' it means they're following their gut.



And if it makes you feel better to blow me off with 'see ya' or 'nuff said' remember this. Cuz in 10 years you'll be bit him about the same thing.



You don't like the rules? Change them. You don't like the ppl making the laws? Replace them. But you can not deny any point I've made as being a valid argument from the other side. Stick your fingers in your ears all you want, that doesn't change the situation.

We have. We will . We did.

82 posts. What a savant!! Locke who? The Federalist what? Plessy ?

Oh my I can see how much we need your wisdom.

I only hope the other side is just as brilliant.

Con con in 2030? Bring it.

 

[swinokur]

..

 

[Sveiks]

..

And now name calling.

That's productive.

You realize this all started from me saying there needs to be a civil debate, on both sides...

I now understand why you must be happily unhappy.

 

[swinokur]

I didn't call you a name. I posted a gif file.

Take from it what you will. Did you single out others or just me because I agreed with another post?

Grow a thicker skin.

 

[Mr H]

I think my granddaughter made him mad.

There are none so blind, and all that...

 

[Sveiks]

I didn't call you a name. I posted a gif file.

Take from it what you will. Did you single out others or just me because I agreed with another post?

Grow a thicker skin.

You're right. I guess if I would have read Locke... The Brit who died before the constitution, I would have understood.

My sincerest apologies.

 

[swinokur]

what time is it? time for...

 

[Mr H]

We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

The BS is finally all over the BPD officers in the Brownstain ad.

 

[Norton]

Goodbye.

 

[Mr H]

As always, thanks.

 

[swinokur]

ditto. being a trash man can be a thankless calling.

 

[oldman12]

Damn. That didn't take long.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

the sad and honest truth?

when the 2A crowd starts winning elections and can make an argument that resonates with the people, Dems and Republicans.

Sorry, but i don't see any other way.

Rights don't have anything to do with elections. They don't come from government or elected officials. This country is founded on individual rights regardless of who thinks we shouldn't have them.

Let me give you another context... Say you and a large group of people witnessed a crime committed against someone you know (or even love). Should the perp be denied his 5th amendment rights because the majority rules on this without due process? You may not like that pesky amendment either when it requires relying on the justice system.

We don't live in a democracy. Even if plenty of ignorant people say it, that doesn't make it so.

See ya when you resurface from your rock.