- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,718
- Reaction score
- 35,497
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Like giving people rights, abortion, gay marriage etc etc.
Its arguments like this that separate the completely out there gun fanatics from the rest of society.
Yes.....I'm a "criminal protector" :roll: who wants to harrass and hassle people.....get real.....responsibility and accountability are not bad words......in fact....they are probably the two most powerful tools that we have to ensure that our "rights" will continue to be protected.
No. Its not judicial activisim because it doesnt reverse existing SCOTUS decisions based on reasoning drawn out of thin air with a political purpose in mind. End of story.In other words when you agree with the ruling, it's not activist. When you don't it is. Hypocrisy 101 Ladies and Gents.
nonsense.
Show me in the constitution where battle captured who have never stepped foot in the US have constitutional rights.
I can show you the opposite.
I can also direct you to the 2nd amendment that this ruling upholds.
There were still 4 activists who dissented on this, demonstrating thier activism and anti-constitutionalism.
Again though you lefties want to call people hypocrites because you have a house of card of a position here.
lame
Bitter much that the constitution was upheld? :roll:
I will likely break from my fellow conservatives here. I believe a strict constructionist could ALSO take it as only allowing regulated militias to keep arms, as that's taking a reading an interpritation from the amendments ACTUAL WORDS..
Allow me to correct you... you mean 0 for 2.In other words, when the constitution is interpreted in a way YOU agree. It's not activism. When it's not then it is activism. Thanks for proving my point. I'm 2 for 2.
In other words, when the constitution is interpreted in a way YOU agree. It's not activism. When it's not then it is activism. Thanks for proving my point. I'm 2 for 2.
In other words, when the constitution is interpreted in a way YOU agree. It's not activism. When it's not then it is activism. Thanks for proving my point. I'm 2 for 2.
Yeah, its a bit hard to see how a universal gun ban does not violate the second amendment. Assault weapons and such should definitely be banned IMO but handguns? If they want to do that they should work on changing the constitution first, otherwise its a lost cause.
Its arguments like this that separate the completely out there gun fanatics from the rest of society.
Yes.....I'm a "criminal protector" :roll: who wants to harrass and hassle people.....get real.....responsibility and accountability are not bad words......in fact....they are probably the two most powerful tools that we have to ensure that our "rights" will continue to be protected.
Yeah, because you NEVER hear a Democrat use the phrase "Activist Judge".... whatever.... :roll:
nonsense.
"well regulated" means in good working order. In that in order for the militia (all men 18-45 and women in the national guard) to be in good working order the right of the people (the same people as in the first) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infinged.
I did not say I AGREED with that reading of the constitution. What I was saying is that I would not label that as a "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" move, because its making a decision about the constitution, based on the constitutions own words, concerning the actual thing that amendment is talking about.
I don't agree with that interpritation at all, and do believe its meant to be the right of the people...so that they can, if necessary, form a militia...and agree with this ruling. What I'm saying however is that i don't believe it to be judicial activism if it was decided guns could only be kept by those functioning as a registered "militia". I would disagree with it, I would think its wrong, but it wouldn't be activism.
You want to ban guns, you try to amend the Constitution.
you'll also have to shoot me dead, cause if you're going to ban my guns you're going to have to deal with me shooting at you. I wouldn't stop till the assaults on my rights were stopped or I was dead.
I think zyph then we just disagree.
Using the vernacular of the time in the 2nd it is easy to see the people are the people. And to me trying to redefine the 2nd to suit the lefts agenda is activism period.
I think I've at least given a very reasoned, explained explanation of how I see the difference between Judicial Activism and Strict Constructionism. What is your explanatio nof the difference Reverend?
you'll also have to shoot me dead, cause if you're going to ban my guns you're going to have to deal with me shooting at you. I wouldn't stop till the assaults on my rights were stopped or I was dead.
Show us where one of us liberals/Democrats accused a judge of being an "Activist Judge." Let's see what 'chu got there, tough guy.
Anyone want to lay bets on when one of the anti-gun liberals will take a shot at telling us how the decision is wrong, rather than attacking the court and/or those that agree with the decision?
you'll also have to shoot me dead, cause if you're going to ban my guns you're going to have to deal with me shooting at you. I wouldn't stop till the assaults on my rights were stopped or I was dead.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?