Skip to main content

View Diary: MAJOR 2nd Amendment victory in the most RKBA-hostile state in America (608 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Same court that ruled Obamacare legal. (9+ / 0-)

    Want to start bashing that one too?

    •  Sure, because apples don't equal oranges (5+ / 0-)

      One was a clearly right-wing interpretation of gun ownership per the 2nd Amendment clear out of Scalia's fearful dreams, the other was whether or not an Act passed Constitutional muster.  Yeah, the same thing.

      My points on this area are easy for all to see, btw:

      What's this about a "militia", anyway?

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:57:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure the Dredd Scott court did some good (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, wader, radical simplicity

      But boy did they screw up that ruling.

      We get what we want - or what we fail to refuse. - Muhammad Yunus

      by nightsweat on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:58:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And Citizen's United (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Transmission, wader

      Listen, you cannot selectively say the court's ruling on one issue proves that it must be constitutional, while dismissing all the stupid-ass unconstitutional rulings.  The same goes in reverse, just cause the court got Citizen's United wrong, it does not mean everything they do is wrong.

      If people want to argue about the constitutionality of gun ownership, reasonable vs unreasonable restrictions and open/concealed carry...they are gonna have to do the hard work of actual legal argumentation and law reading.  Sadly, given that the current court (and I assume everyone agrees on this) has gotten some cases right, and others wrong...there is no way we can use the court's verdict, by itself, on the 2nd amendment to argue whether it is constitutional or not.

      The court ruled on the right to have guns in your home, its the law of the land...but that is different.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:13:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's legal until a new court rules different. (6+ / 0-)

        Until Supremes start croaking, it's settled law, and no amount of second-guessing change that fact.

        Either way, from a policy point of view, these legalistic arguments are uninteresting because they don't even begin to address the root of the debate.

        •  Uh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader

          My god, you're analysis is brilliant.

          It's legal until a new court rules different. Until Supremes start croaking, it's settled law, and no amount of second-guessing change that fact.
          Its amazing, its incredible...how did you come up with that incredible insight...oh yeah, you read the last two sentences the very comment you responded to.
          The court ruled on the right to have guns in your home, its the law of the land...
          Sweet Jesus this isn't complicated.  Wader says he believes the Supremes got it wrong.  He might be right, or he might be wrong.

          The question at hand is DID THE SUPREMES GET IT RIGHT?

          Yet, you respond "yeah, but the supremes said it was right, so its right."

          I mean seriously.  Let's do a simple word substitution

          Person 1: John Boehner says Obama has not provided a specific budget proposal.

          Person 2: I say John Boehner is wrong (and lying sack of shit).  How do you know otherwise?

          Person 1: Cause John Boehner told me.
           

          "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

          by Empty Vessel on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:41:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site