Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not
local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. Joe |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Joe wrote:
Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans. |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
RBnDFW wrote:
Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans. Yet the Supreme Court is supposed to be interpreting the US constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text. Which is fine with me, and makes me glad that's how things work in the US -- if _you_ want to live in a land where the rules are made and enforced according to some preacher's interpretation of religious law, there's always Iran. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"RBnDFW" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans. But there are several ironies here. First is that the Constitution was written by men, so *their* interpretation of "basic rights of humans" could be wrong. In fact, the US signed a UN document (and largely wrote it) a half-century ago that says we missed close to half of them. Second is that the same people who claim states' rights are the ones who say the Constitution was about limitations to what the *federal* government could do, and over which it had authority. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1830s, in the Barron v. Baltimore case. Then the 14th Amendment was passed decades later, and now we're still deciding whether that actually gave the federal government, particularly the Supreme Court, the authority to decide when a state is violating a right of their citizens. In the matter of the 2nd Amendment, that's what this case is going to decide. The final irony, which Joe pointed out, is that Scalia and Thomas (mostly Scalia) has been sarcastically bad-mouthing the "substantive due process" doctrine that has given us such things as nation-wide free speech, freedom of religion, and so on, for a few decades. That's the most likely doctrine for the Court to follow in granting federal authority to enforce the right to keep and bear arms, over the heads of the states. But it's well known that Scalia and Thomas hate that doctrine, while at the same time favoring the extending of the right over the states -- a process called "incorporation" under the 14th. They're between a rock and a hard place. Either they invoke substantive due process and embarrass themselves (that's what the NRA wants them to do, in their parallel case), or they overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases which have stood as precedent since the 1870s, and employ a different doctrine from the 14th to incorporate the 2nd. We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that it was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who is supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange bedfellows indeed. Fasten your seat belt. g -- Ed Huntress |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 2, 11:31*am, Tim Wescott wrote:
RBnDFW wrote: Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. * *No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans. Yet the Supreme Court is supposed to be interpreting the US constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text. Which is fine with me, and makes me glad that's how things work in the US -- if _you_ want to live in a land where the rules are made and enforced according to some preacher's interpretation of religious law, there's always Iran. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consultingwww.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ....or any state south of the Mason Dixon line. TMT |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 2, 12:16*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. * *No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans. But there are several ironies here. First is that the Constitution was written by men, so *their* interpretation of "basic rights of humans" could be wrong. In fact, the US signed a UN document (and largely wrote it) a half-century ago that says we missed close to half of them. Second is that the same people who claim states' rights are the ones who say the Constitution was about limitations to what the *federal* government could do, and over which it had authority. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1830s, in the Barron v. Baltimore case. Then the 14th Amendment was passed decades later, and now we're still deciding whether that actually gave the federal government, particularly the Supreme Court, the authority to decide when a state is violating a right of their citizens. In the matter of the 2nd Amendment, that's what this case is going to decide. The final irony, which Joe pointed out, is that Scalia and Thomas (mostly Scalia) has been sarcastically bad-mouthing the "substantive due process" doctrine that has given us such things as nation-wide free speech, freedom of religion, and so on, for a few decades. That's the most likely doctrine for the Court to follow in granting federal authority to enforce the right to keep and bear arms, over the heads of the states. But it's well known that Scalia and Thomas hate that doctrine, while at the same time favoring the extending of the right over the states -- a process called "incorporation" under the 14th. They're between a rock and a hard place. Either they invoke substantive due process and embarrass themselves (that's what the NRA wants them to do, in their parallel case), or they overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases which have stood as precedent since the 1870s, and employ a different doctrine from the 14th to incorporate the 2nd. We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that it was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who is supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange bedfellows indeed. Fasten your seat belt. g -- Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am reminded of the saying...."Be careful what you ask for". ;) TMT |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 2, 6:29*am, Joe wrote:
Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. Joe Well said for the most part. But it's not about freedom. It's about owning a specific tool...a gun. Wouldn't be a laugh if more restrictive gun control came out of this? TMT |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:57:01 -0600, RBnDFW
wrote: Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans. *I'm* missing the point? While I believe that we do have "certain inalienable rights", where is the list? What, exactly, are those rights? (Besides, I don't think that the issue here is about rights granted by any "creator". I think it concerns rights established by the - mere mortal - framers of the Constitution for the protection of the citizens.) Joe |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 2, 10:57*am, RBnDFW wrote:
Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. * * No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No it is not. There is no 11th Commandment saying "Thou shalt have guns". TMT |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 2, 12:16*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. * *No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans. But there are several ironies here. First is that the Constitution was written by men, so *their* interpretation of "basic rights of humans" could be wrong. In fact, the US signed a UN document (and largely wrote it) a half-century ago that says we missed close to half of them. Second is that the same people who claim states' rights are the ones who say the Constitution was about limitations to what the *federal* government could do, and over which it had authority. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1830s, in the Barron v. Baltimore case. Then the 14th Amendment was passed decades later, and now we're still deciding whether that actually gave the federal government, particularly the Supreme Court, the authority to decide when a state is violating a right of their citizens. In the matter of the 2nd Amendment, that's what this case is going to decide. The final irony, which Joe pointed out, is that Scalia and Thomas (mostly Scalia) has been sarcastically bad-mouthing the "substantive due process" doctrine that has given us such things as nation-wide free speech, freedom of religion, and so on, for a few decades. That's the most likely doctrine for the Court to follow in granting federal authority to enforce the right to keep and bear arms, over the heads of the states. But it's well known that Scalia and Thomas hate that doctrine, while at the same time favoring the extending of the right over the states -- a process called "incorporation" under the 14th. They're between a rock and a hard place. Either they invoke substantive due process and embarrass themselves (that's what the NRA wants them to do, in their parallel case), or they overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases which have stood as precedent since the 1870s, and employ a different doctrine from the 14th to incorporate the 2nd. We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that it was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who is supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange bedfellows indeed. Fasten your seat belt. g -- Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ed...considering the courts have given Eminent Domain free reign, what stops the Government from declaring all guns "property of the Government"? TMT |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
You flaming socialist/liberals are amazing!!!! Don't give up your freedoms so quickly!! You don't get them back. I wish my grandparents had guns when the SS put a gun to my grandfather's head. Government don't care about your rights. Government care about their control over YOU. Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol pot, Marx, Engels, Chavez, etc. Wake UP! Shabtai Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. Joe |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. Joe Well said for the most part. But it's not about freedom. It's about owning a specific tool...a gun. Wouldn't be a laugh if more restrictive gun control came out of this? TMT I wouldn't bet the farm on gun control getting more restrictive. Not with the current make up of the court. The conservatives have a solid five man majority so they will rule any way they want. What you will see showcased here is unequivocal proof the the justices vote their politics and law has nothing to do with their decisions. As Ed pointed out, the conservative justices have put themselves in a box because of some positions they took in the past and if they go against them they look like hypocrites. But as we saw in Bush v Gore the supreme court says one thing one day and the opposite the next. They are always against intervening in political matters. Unless it means a Democrat will be the president. They believe in deferring to states rights. Unless they want to tell the states what to do. In this case the conservatives want to deny states and local governments the right to restrict the right of the public to have guns. That's what they will do. Then they will come up with some kooky twisted logic to explain why they made a decision that contradicts what they said they believe in. It's quite a show really. Logically, if the Constitution is the supreme law and it says the right of the people to bear shall not be infringed, then how in the hell could states and local governments have the right to put any restrictions on guns? Anything that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution is not going to be under control of lesser governments. So why is there any argument about this to begin with? Maybe it's because logic and law don't have much in common. Hawke |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
I've found that liberals in the US share the same
beliefs that many Jews did. "We would never do that to them.... they would never do that to us." "I'm privileged because I'm..... so I won't be hurt." (Loyal, hard working, member of the ruling party, etc.) "That would never happen, here." "They are only after those other guys." -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "Shabtai" wrote in message ... You flaming socialist/liberals are amazing!!!! Don't give up your freedoms so quickly!! You don't get them back. I wish my grandparents had guns when the SS put a gun to my grandfather's head. Government don't care about your rights. Government care about their control over YOU. Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol pot, Marx, Engels, Chavez, etc. Wake UP! Shabtai |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Too_Many_Tools wrote in
: On Mar 2, 10:57*am, RBnDFW wrote: Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same right s. * * No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.- H ide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No it is not. There is no 11th Commandment saying "Thou shalt have guns". TMT That's because firearms hadn't been invented yet, you flaming Mariposa. There is one, however, that prohibits the taking of private property: "Thou shall not steal." - the one most often broken by Demoncraps, Liberals, and other criminals. |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
|
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
In article , Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:86270aaa-5eb6-4b0a- : But it's not about freedom. Yes, it is. That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms? Precisely so. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are only scraps of paper, and the rights they guarantee us only empty words, if we the people lack the means to *compel* the government to honor those guarantees, should it ever prove reluctant to do so. |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that it was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who is supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange bedfellows indeed. Fasten your seat belt. g That is an interesting mix but it won't be the first or the last time it happens. The NRA isn't supporting it? http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=13487 IIRC though, they wanted their separate block of time so maybe you know something I don't yet. I seem to remember something about that a while back from a podcast I was listening to. I wish I had a better memory. I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went. Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Eregon wrote:
That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms? FDR came very, very close to doing just that through national censorship, imprisonment of citizens of Asian descent, German descent, and/or Italian descent while simultaneously striking deals with the Sicilian Mafia. Didn't he outlaw the possession of gold also? Yup, looked it up. I've never understood why some consider him to be some sort of hero. He was a tyrant. Oh yes, remember his attempt to to pack the Supreme Court? I rest my case. Wes |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Wes wrote:
I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went. Damn, scotusblog indicates Gura went down in flames. Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 2, 4:02*pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote : On Mar 2, 10:57*am, RBnDFW wrote: Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same right s. * * No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.- H ide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No it is not. There is no 11th Commandment saying "Thou shalt have guns". TMT That's because firearms hadn't been invented yet, you flaming Mariposa. There is one, however, that prohibits the taking of private property: "Thou shall not steal." - the one most often broken by Demoncraps, Liberals, and other criminals.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What world do you live in? Firearms were in use during the period. You must be homeschooled...did you have your own pet dinosaur? TMT |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that it was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who is supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange bedfellows indeed. Fasten your seat belt. g That is an interesting mix but it won't be the first or the last time it happens. The NRA isn't supporting it? http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=13487 IIRC though, they wanted their separate block of time so maybe you know something I don't yet. I seem to remember something about that a while back from a podcast I was listening to. I wish I had a better memory. The NRA is arguing not to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases, but to incorporate the 2nd via "substantive due process." This is a little weird for an organization that has an expansive view of the Bill of Rights, but they're apparently afraid of the consequences -- if the Slaughterhouse Cases are overturned, it will reverse some other old cases and essentially give everyone in the US the same rights. 'Can't have that, ya' know. g I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went. Wes There will be plenty of buzz tonight and tomorrow. So far, it sounds like Scalia is favoring substantive due process. And the liberals are still in opposition. -- Ed Huntress |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"Wes" wrote in message ... Eregon wrote: That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms? FDR came very, very close to doing just that through national censorship, imprisonment of citizens of Asian descent, German descent, and/or Italian descent while simultaneously striking deals with the Sicilian Mafia. Didn't he outlaw the possession of gold also? Yup, looked it up. I've never understood why some consider him to be some sort of hero. He was a tyrant. Oh yes, remember his attempt to to pack the Supreme Court? I rest my case. Wes Wes, he's considered by historians to be one of the three or four best presidents because he kept the country from falling into rebellion during the Great Depression, and because he got us through WWII. What's the "tyrant" stuff? It was a time of war. Whenever we've been in a REAL war, the president in office has done similar things. -- Ed Huntress |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"Wes" wrote in message ... Wes wrote: I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went. Damn, scotusblog indicates Gura went down in flames. From what I've heard, that was just on the issue of whether to reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases. That won't influence whether the 2nd in incorporated. It was a long shot, anyway, and Cato knew it. -- Ed Huntress |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message ... Wes wrote: I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went. Damn, scotusblog indicates Gura went down in flames. From what I've heard, that was just on the issue of whether to reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases. That won't influence whether the 2nd in incorporated. It was a long shot, anyway, and Cato knew it. I'll sleep a bit better tonight, which will come shortly. I want to hear the oral arguments. If you find a link to a mp3 when it is released, please email me. You have my active e-mail address. Thanks, Wes |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
|
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On 3/2/2010 3:48 PM, Wes wrote:
wrote: That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms? FDR came very, very close to doing just that through national censorship, imprisonment of citizens of Asian descent, German descent, and/or Italian descent while simultaneously striking deals with the Sicilian Mafia. Didn't he outlaw the possession of gold also? Yup, looked it up. I've never understood why some consider him to be some sort of hero. He was a tyrant. Oh yes, remember his attempt to to pack the Supreme Court? I rest my case. Hey Wes, If FDR was such a tyrant why was it that the American people kept electing him to be their president, why is he considered as one of the five best presidents in history, and why was FDR loved by the vast majority of Americans when he was in office, and why were they devastated when he died? If you can find the answers to those questions that should tell you why he was a true American hero. Of course, you could just find any old person still alive who lived in FDR's era and they could explain it to you. I wouldn't ask any right wingers for the answers though if you want to know the truth. By the way, both my parents lived in that era and are still living so I have it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Hawke |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:17:07 -0800, Shabtai
wrote: You flaming socialist/liberals are amazing!!!! Whoa, before you decide to malign me, stop and think (if you are able). What about my comment made you think I am a "socialist/liberal"? Methinks your knee started jerking uncontrollably as soon as you read the subject line. That left you without the ability to read (and comprehend) what I actually wrote. I normally try to keep my comments civil, but when you start calling me a liberal, well, them's fightin' words, boy! Don't give up your freedoms so quickly!! You don't get them back. I wish my grandparents had guns when the SS put a gun to my grandfather's head. Government don't care about your rights. Government care about their control over YOU. Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol pot, Marx, Engels, Chavez, etc. Don't forget that Reagan also started talking up gun control shortly after he got out of office. Right-wing despots also favor gun control. (And were Marx & Engels really in favor of gun control? I hadn't heard that, though it's possible.) Joe Wake UP! Shabtai Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. Joe |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Wes" wrote in message ... Wes wrote: I can't wait to hear Alan Gura's take on how it went. Damn, scotusblog indicates Gura went down in flames. From what I've heard, that was just on the issue of whether to reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases. That won't influence whether the 2nd in incorporated. It was a long shot, anyway, and Cato knew it. I'll sleep a bit better tonight, which will come shortly. I want to hear the oral arguments. If you find a link to a mp3 when it is released, please email me. You have my active e-mail address. Thanks, Wes I don't think there is one. There is a full transcript he http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/08-1521.pdf However, the SCOTUS Blog is where I go for summary analyses: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/an...ension-likely/ -- Ed Huntress |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 2, 7:04*pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:cfb07195-9ed8-4d56- : What world do you live in? Unlike you (who lives in a fantasy world) I live in the REAL world. Firearms were in use during the period. In 4000+ BCE? The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder until much, MUCH later, you stupid fruit! I thought that according to all you Religious Right types that God knows EVERYTHING. Wouldn't She have planned ahead and included an 11th Commandment "Thou Shalt Have Guns"? TMT |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Too_Many_Tools wrote in
: On Mar 2, 7:04*pm, Eregon wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:cfb07195-9ed8-4d5 6- : What world do you live in? Unlike you (who lives in a fantasy world) I live in the REAL world. Firearms were in use during the period. In 4000+ BCE? The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder until much, MUCH later, you stupid fruit! I thought that according to all you Religious Right types that God knows EVERYTHING. You should leave thought to those capable of such an ardurous feat - one which you continually prove yourself to be totally incapable of even the most basic forms. Wouldn't She have planned ahead and included an 11th Commandment "Thou Shalt Have Guns"? TMT Why bother? When it was time for them people were inspired to invent them as a way of keeping the numbers of idiots under control. After all, the same thing applies to fly swatters and automobiles. Evil Grin BTW, you fatuous fruit, there are over 600 Commandments spelled out in the Book of Exodus rather that just 10. Failure to obey each and every one of them could cause you to return as a Lemming. Very Evil Grin |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Point taken. My anger over "useful idiots" eagerly willing to give up
freedoms in this country was mis-directed at what appears to be the initial poster, instead of some of the stupid replies. Next time I should read more closely, instead of pulling the trigger so quickly. Sorry. Thank you for correcting me in such a civil manner. Shabtai Joe wrote: On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:17:07 -0800, Shabtai wrote: You flaming socialist/liberals are amazing!!!! Whoa, before you decide to malign me, stop and think (if you are able). What about my comment made you think I am a "socialist/liberal"? Methinks your knee started jerking uncontrollably as soon as you read the subject line. That left you without the ability to read (and comprehend) what I actually wrote. I normally try to keep my comments civil, but when you start calling me a liberal, well, them's fightin' words, boy! Don't give up your freedoms so quickly!! You don't get them back. I wish my grandparents had guns when the SS put a gun to my grandfather's head. Government don't care about your rights. Government care about their control over YOU. Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol pot, Marx, Engels, Chavez, etc. Don't forget that Reagan also started talking up gun control shortly after he got out of office. Right-wing despots also favor gun control. (And were Marx & Engels really in favor of gun control? I hadn't heard that, though it's possible.) Joe Wake UP! Shabtai Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. Joe |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Guys, I was busy with my lathe, can someone tell me when we will find
out what is the supreme court's decision. Thanks |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"Ignoramus5280" wrote in message ... Guys, I was busy with my lathe, can someone tell me when we will find out what is the supreme court's decision. Thanks Sometime in June. Best Regards Tom. |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
"Ignoramus5280" wrote in message ... Guys, I was busy with my lathe, can someone tell me when we will find out what is the supreme court's decision. Thanks Probably early June. -- Ed Huntress |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 3, 1:10*am, Hawke wrote:
On 3/2/2010 3:48 PM, Wes wrote: *wrote: That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms? FDR came very, very close to doing just that through national censorship, imprisonment of citizens of Asian descent, German descent, and/or Italian descent while simultaneously striking deals with the Sicilian Mafia. Didn't he outlaw the possession of gold also? *Yup, looked it up. *I've never understood why some consider him to be some sort of hero. *He was a tyrant. *Oh yes, remember his attempt to to pack the Supreme Court? *I rest my case. Hey Wes, If FDR was such a tyrant why was it that the American people kept electing him to be their president, why is he considered as one of the five best presidents in history, and why was FDR loved by the vast majority of Americans when he was in office, and why were they devastated when he died? If you can find the answers to those questions that should tell you why he was a true American hero. Of course, you could just find any old person still alive who lived in FDR's era and they could explain it to you. I wouldn't ask any right wingers for the answers though if you want to know the truth. By the way, both my parents lived in that era and are still living so I have it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Hawke Hitler was loved by the Germans until the war went badly for Germany. I do not understand why he kept being elected and why the Germans loved him so. If you have the answers to that, you might have the answers to FDR reelection, etc. Dan |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
|
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Joe wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:57:01 -0600, RBnDFW wrote: Joe wrote: Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights" over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this decision. While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory and/or repressive behavior. Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom. I think you are missing the point. The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government is constrained from limiting those rights. The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights. No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans. *I'm* missing the point? While I believe that we do have "certain inalienable rights", where is the list? What, exactly, are those rights? That's the point - there is no list. A list would be limiting, in itself. (Besides, I don't think that the issue here is about rights granted by any "creator". I think it concerns rights established by the - mere mortal - framers of the Constitution for the protection of the citizens.) Those rights are alluded to in the Declaration of Independence as granted by the Creator. While no deity is credited in the Constitution, the underlying presumption is that there are basic rights intrinsic in all humans, and that all remain inviolate. As to the two arguments in McDonald, I find it interesting that Gura's' P&I argument was dismissed out of hand, while latecomer NRA's due process argument looks like it will carry the day. |
#38
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
jk wrote in
: Eregon wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:cfb07195-9ed8-4d56- : What world do you live in? Unlike you (who lives in a fantasy world) I live in the REAL world. Firearms were in use during the period. In 4000+ BCE? The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder until much, MUCH later, you stupid fruit! What kind of idiot thinks the Bill of rights was written in 4000 (+ or -) BC? jk Turd Munching Troll was attempting to introduce a religious red herring. |
#39
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
Ignoramus5280 wrote:
Guys, I was busy with my lathe, can someone tell me when we will find out what is the supreme court's decision. Thanks Don't worry, get your lathe going. It will be warm outside when the decision is announced. Heck, your CNC BP might be running too. Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
#40
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
On Mar 3, 9:36*am, " wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:10*am, Hawke wrote: On 3/2/2010 3:48 PM, Wes wrote: *wrote: That's what it's all about, in fact, since, without them, what's to stop the next Demoncrap to enter the Oval Office from suppressing ALL freedoms? FDR came very, very close to doing just that through national censorship, imprisonment of citizens of Asian descent, German descent, and/or Italian descent while simultaneously striking deals with the Sicilian Mafia. Didn't he outlaw the possession of gold also? *Yup, looked it up. *I've never understood why some consider him to be some sort of hero. *He was a tyrant. *Oh yes, remember his attempt to to pack the Supreme Court? *I rest my case. Hey Wes, If FDR was such a tyrant why was it that the American people kept electing him to be their president, why is he considered as one of the five best presidents in history, and why was FDR loved by the vast majority of Americans when he was in office, and why were they devastated when he died? If you can find the answers to those questions that should tell you why he was a true American hero. Of course, you could just find any old person still alive who lived in FDR's era and they could explain it to you. I wouldn't ask any right wingers for the answers though if you want to know the truth. By the way, both my parents lived in that era and are still living so I have it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Hawke Hitler was loved by the Germans until the war went badly for Germany. I do not understand why he kept being elected and why the Germans loved him so. *If you have the answers to that, you might have the answers to FDR reelection, etc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Or Bush's recent reelection. TMT |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Trying to decide on ceiling material. | Metalworking | |||
Basement Flooring - Decide What's Best For You | Home Repair | |||
14" bandsaw, can't decide | Woodworking | |||
How do I decide if I need to line a chimney? | Home Repair | |||
Trying to decide on a Band Saw. | Woodworking |