HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "The 2nd amendment p...

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:07 PM

"The 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right" - Barack Obama

Enough with the 'militia' bunkum, already...

18 replies, 1409 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply "The 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right" - Barack Obama (Original post)
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 OP
Loudly Jan 2013 #1
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #2
Loudly Jan 2013 #5
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #6
Loudly Jan 2013 #7
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #8
Loudly Jan 2013 #9
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #10
Loudly Jan 2013 #11
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #12
Loudly Jan 2013 #14
luckyleftyme2 Jan 2013 #15
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #17
Loudly Jan 2013 #18
Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #3
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #4
Bucky Jan 2013 #13
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #16

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:11 PM

1. He's got to say that. But he's smart enough to know the truth.

 

The 2A has as much relevance to modern American life as does the three-fifths compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:16 PM

2. It appears your work is cut out for you- get to it!

Section V of the Constitution awaits your attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:43 PM

5. Replacing Scalia and Thomas will pretty much solve the problem. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:55 PM

6. Well no, as all the other justices agreed that the 2ndA protects an individual right...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html


Stevens, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit


Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.


There's another little-noticed bit from that dissent which would make your task that much harder.
I hope you appreciate the irony of it:

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:00 PM

7. Easily reconciled with jurisprudence evolving around manufacture, importation and sale.

 

Practical access to and abundance of the product is the route most easily taken via the judicial branch, allied with a strong-willed and serious executive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:02 PM

8. And if the legislative branch disagrees, and has a supermajority? What then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:04 PM

9. Then they are free to amend the Constitution. Which is a hopeless endeavor for either side.

 

Control of the courts is everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:08 PM

10. They would also be free to impeach the President-and they might very well succeed at that endeavor.

I don't think a Congressional supermajority would bow to the Supremes in any event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:23 PM

11. Impeach the president for a SCOTUS majority decision hostile to the gun trade?

 

Or impeach him for nominating justices who wrote and/or concurred in such a decision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:30 PM

12. Congress can impeach a president for whatever reason they like.

I'd remind you that Bill Clinton got impeached (but not convicted) ostensibly for having sex with an
an intern and lying about it, but in reality because Republicans didn't like him...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:37 PM

14. But blaming the President for a Supreme Court interpretation of the 2A?

 

The cry at the time (1954) was impeach Earl Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:52 PM

15. why I carry


people like you let druggies have a free ride-you don't turn the kid in who is selling pot in school. well when that kid becomes hooked he roams for cash and will attack and rob anything that looks like it has it. Or he's the bus driver,the crane operator,the train,plane or whatever that has killed so many innocents. I live in a rural state in a small town and always thought it was a big city problem-well it ain't anymore! Let me tell ya ain't no one taking my weapon-and I'm not license to carry it. but I will use it to protect me or any innocent person ! you druggies be aware there is 100's of us in my state just like me! And we don't advertise we carry just to confuse your kind!
so that spiel about 2nd amendment and now is bull! we need it now more than ever!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to luckyleftyme2 (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:01 PM

17. You are aware that flouting the law is anti-social behavior?.

Everyone with anti-social behavior has justifications about why their particular brand is ok.

I suppose you are aware that anti-social behavior has a very high association with violence?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to luckyleftyme2 (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:17 PM

18. There isn't a speck of Constitutional basis in your rant.

 

It's all just I Feel Scared And I Want A Gun And Bullets.

At present, it's true that you are benefiting from a political indulgence of your kink.

But it has no merit as a claim of "right."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:24 PM

3. So does the 1st, yet 7400+ Occupiers have been beaten and arrested for expressing it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:26 PM

4. Show me *any* politician and I'll show you a hypocrite.

They seem to be better at dealing with cognitive dissonance than ordinary folk...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:34 PM

13. We have to procede carefully. We don't want Scalia flipping out and shooting up the Court chambers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:55 PM

16. He ran on that in 2008. I objected to it in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread