• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Like giving people rights, abortion, gay marriage etc etc.;)

I love arguments like this.

Here's the difference between a strict constructionist and an "activist".

A strict constructionist would be looking at the second amendment.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clear as day. There's no creating that verbage out of thin air, its present.

NOW

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.

But the whole key with strict constructionism is the general belief that what is said is what is meant. What is spelled out is what is present. No more, no less.

In regards to activists...

Show me a place in the consitution it speaks of Marriage? Show me a part of the constitution that speaks about birthing or abortion. These are issues where judges have taken something in the consitution, then taken other sources, then come to their own decision of how it should be.

THAT is Judicial activism. Saying "I think this statement here SHOULD apply to this, even though the wording and intent at the time had nothing to do with it."

How some people on the left are trying to state that reading the actual words of the constitution, making a decision based on those word, on something that has to do specifically those words is "judicial activism".

Overturning laws based on the constitution, even long standing ones, is not judicial activism. Taking portions of the consitution, and applying them to things that have no bearing and have no mention towards them or something distinctly similiar to them, IS judicial activism.

Hautey, you want to state that people are deciding on what's "activism" or not in a judicial sense based on what they do or don't agree with. I've outlined here completely what my view of what activisim is, how some of those you mentioned fit it, and how this decision doesn't. So how about you do the same and explain why you think this is Judicial Activism in the same sense as some of the other things. OR, are you just enjoying to stir the pot and call out without actually putting any facts, thought, or debate behind it on this issue? I don't know that to normally be your style, so I'll be enjoying to see how you can compare these two things.
 
Last edited:
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.

If you supported the DC gun ban then you are a criminal supporter.



Edit to add, this is a general you, not a you you. My position is that if you support the DC gun ban you disarm the populace, and thusly support the criminals in DC as you are makin it easier.

This is not a purposeful thing mind you but an unintended consequence of this sort of laws.
 
Last edited:
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

In other words when you agree with the ruling, it's not activist. When you don't it is. Hypocrisy 101 Ladies and Gents.
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.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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:

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.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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..



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.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.
Allow me to correct you... you mean 0 for 2.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.

Please read my post (at 10:38am) and Zyphlin's as well.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.



When you uphold the constitution as 5 of 9 judges did here, that is a good constitutional ruling.


When you reverse a previous ruling for political reasons (the rights of terrrorists ruling) you are legislating from the bench.


Don't be so obtuse. The purposeful ignorance is not becomming.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.

Please watch this and learn:
YouTube - The Truth about "Assault Weapons"
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.

go ahead and prove that a registration scheme that cannot even be applied to those who cause most of the problems with firearms is anything other than harassment

try to prove it will increase what you claim it will

you are just making stuff up

that you believe in nanny state infringements on our rights based on a laughable and highly speculative belief that hassling honest people while excluding criminals is disgusting
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Yeah, because you NEVER hear a Democrat use the phrase "Activist Judge".... whatever.... :roll:

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. ;)
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

I understand how some may think that guns for personal use should be banned (even if I don't agree). However, you're taking your personal beliefs and attempting to mold the Constitution to conform to them.

You want to ban guns, you try to amend the Constitution.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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?
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.



I disagree that it would not be activism as that would change what the people meant in the 2nd from what they meant in the first.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Once again...you're not getting me reverend.

There, once again, you're using the actual constitution and not some outside source as your reasoning for your argument. Very good, that'd be a great way to argue against that.

HOWEVER

That still doesn't make it "activism" as its still rooted specifically in the constitution, specifically in the words of it, specifically dealing with the specific things it states in the amendment. The simple fact that there is a POTENTIAL qualifier in there as to which "the people" it speaking of in the 2nd as opposed to the 1st gives legitimate reason to believe it could be different.

Once again, I'm not saying I think that's the case. I don't. However, I would not call that judicial activism becasue its still entirely based on the actual words and topic presented in the amendment.

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?
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.



Sure you can have my guns, bullets first! :mrgreen:
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.

Indeed, we must agree. However, disagreeing without knowing WHY we disagree doesn't add anything to debate. Will you answer:

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?

Please tell me YOUR definition isn't "redefine [an amendment] to suit the lefts agenda is activism" as that is, essentially, EXACTLY what Hautey is saying.

To truly have to have a definition you need to have an exact criteria that can be matched regardless of political persuation.
 
Last edited:
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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 don't know if that was directed at me or not but my point was that the anti-gun activists are attempting to change Constitutionally-protected laws. The only remaining course of action they now have is to amend the Constitution.

Seeing as that is (thankfully) near-impossible in the current political climate, it looks like we're OK.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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. ;)

k.... ;)

Here's one by the Democrat Nominee for President...

Obama Statement on the Nomination of Judge Southwick for the U.S. Appeals Court | U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Here's another...

Remarks of U.S. Senator Barack Obama on the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown | U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Here's a speech where Hillary Clinton referred to Alito's "judicial activism"...

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator for New York: Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Senate Floor on the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito

How 'bout Chuck Schumer...

Latest News

That's just for starters... I could keep going and going... but really, let's all have some intellectual honesty here... I'm not saying Republicans don't use the term 'activist judge' when they disagree with judicial decisions... but to say Democrat's don't use the same terms as Republicans? Really? We're really gonna go there?

Sometimes partisanship CAN cloud one's intellectual honesty and I know you and DD aren't stupid....
 
Last edited:
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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?

No takers yet...:confused:
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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 can't disagree more heavily with this.

You're cherry picking the constitution by stating this.

You're ignoring other peoples rights of free expression, and the founders intent for the constitution to be able to be altered for the times, by stating you would SHOOT AND KILL PEOPLE for trying to do what they're constitutionally allowed to do....amend the constitution.

No one part of the constitution is more important than the other. No one part of the consitution can be ignored while another one lauded.

If they simply tried to take your guns away, more power to you. If they're going through the constitutionally approved method to do it, then they're within their constitutional rights and YOU are the one violating THEIR rights by attempting to kill them.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

We are not supposed to fear those who can kill us but only those who can take our lives and our souls. Democracy demands we have the right to our soul, but Democracy does not demand the soulfully motivated translate their concerns into unspecified universal values. Should the "universal values" of many worldly states impinge on the rights of the soulfully motivated state, the freedom of the soulfully motivated state demands arms.

The distinction between a free people and a slave people is the right to arms, the former have the means to be free souls but the latter have only freedom through death.

The free people, we the people, who is without rights to arms outside of the Republican Guard can lose their lives and their free souls.

This was a good ruling. Pay heed to who is against it and how it relates to soul music.
 
Back
Top Bottom