View Poll Results: Where do you stand brothers?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm and communist nazi socialist fascist and I think this ruling is a step in the right direction

    24 33.80%
  • I'm a God fearing American I think this is just another example of Big Government that is too big

    7 9.86%
  • GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns

    28 39.44%
  • My Internet Autism prevents me from deciding between the other options.

    12 16.90%
Closed Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 139
  1. #1
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    Finally an Issue I can march the streets with the Tea baggers side by side.

    Okay Government has gone too far. The judicial activist on the bench today made a historic ruling essentially legislating from the bench and overturning all handgun bans.

    Not since Roe v. Wade and before that Brown v Board of education has the supreme court shit all over States Rights as its been done today.

    If you haven't heard I'll catch you up.


    The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court's embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice.
    By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges.


    On its busy final day before a three-month recess, the court also ruled that a public law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, jumped into the nation's charged immigration debate by agreeing to review an employer sanctions law from Arizona and said farewell to Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after more than 34 years.
    A short distance from the court, the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Stevens.


    In the guns case, Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
    The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Roberts voted with the majority.


    Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
    That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.


    Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.


    Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.


    The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
    Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.


    Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said he was disappointed with the ruling, adding that officials already are at work rewriting the ordinance to meet the court's gun rights guarantee and protect Chicago residents from gun violence.


    Alito made plain that local officials still have some leeway in crafting gun laws. He noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."


    Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday's decision "could prove far more destructive - quite literally - to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."
    The ruling seemed unlikely to resolve questions and ongoing legal challenges about precisely what sort of gun control laws are permissible.
    The response of the District to the court's ruling in 2008 is illustrative of the uncertainty.


    Local lawmakers in Washington, D.C. imposed a series of regulations on handgun ownership, including requirements to register weapons and to submit to a multiple-choice test, fingerprinting and a ballistics test. Owners must also show they have gotten classroom instruction on handling a gun and have spent at least an hour on the firing range. Some 800 people have now registered handguns in the city.


    Anticipating a similar result in their case, Chicago lawmakers are looking at even more stringent regulations. But the new regulations themselves are likely to themselves be the subject of lawsuits, a fact noted by the dissenting justices Monday. Already in Washington, Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the original case before the Supreme Court, has sued the city over its new laws.
    Heller argues that the stringent restrictions violate the intent of the high court's decision. So far, a federal judge has upheld the limitations, but the case has been appealed.


    Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said his politically powerful group "will continue to work at every level to insure that defiant city councils and cynical politicians do not transform this constitutional victory into a practical defeat through Byzantine regulations and restrictions."


    New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent proponent of gun control, said the ruling allows cities "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens."
    New York does not ban guns, but restricts who can have them.
    So as you see 5 unelected and unaccountable judges have now decided they know whats better for the people of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles then their duly elected officials.

    First they rammed Heath care reform down our throats and now this? Does the 10th amendment not matter to these people anymore? When does it end?

    So when our Tea bagger brethren march the streets of Washington and Glenn Beck calls for the Second Million Man march on this issue I assure you my friends I will be there fighting along side my colleagues on the right for states' rights.


    Who is with me?

  2. #2
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,696
    BG Level
    6

    Not I. I mean in principle, obviously; I'm not an American.

    The supreme court seems to be acting as it should given the constitution it's working with. If the ruling upsets you, then sue for constitutional reform, not for a court appeal.

  3. #3
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    Good thing I don't take the opinion of people from the Communist State of Canada seriously.

    What would you know about States' rights? You force people into your shitty health care system up there.

  4. #4

    If you actually think the teabaggers will march against this you are delusional.

    Sure their ideology dictates they should, but operating under the assumption that they aren't hypocrites is...well lol, you aren't stupid, you should/probably do know that.

    Have to think this is trolling, but with you guys I never know for sure.

  5. #5
    But I don't want my title changed
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,508
    BG Level
    8
    FFXIV Character
    Fievel Mousekewitz
    FFXIV Server
    Excalibur

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoolander View Post
    If you actually think the teabaggers will march against this you are delusional.

    Sure their ideology dictates they should, but operating under the assumption that they aren't hypocrites is...well lol, you aren't stupid, you should/probably do know that.

    Have to think this is trolling, but with you guys I never know for sure.
    Based on the poll choices I'm going to assume that this is a troll thread, and if it wasn't meant to be then wow, lol.

    All this thread is going to be is people disagreeing and calling each other stupid and ignorant.

    WERE GONNA MARCH WITH EM FUCK - FUCK NO DONT MARCH YOURE DUMB LAWL

    YOURE A COMMUNIST/NAZI GTFO OUT OF AMERICA


    etc

  6. #6
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,696
    BG Level
    6

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinox View Post
    Good thing I don't take the opinion of people from the Communist State of Canada seriously.

    What would you know about States' rights? You force people into your shitty health care system up there.
    Actually healthcare is a provincial matter here too. Every province maintains and administers its own program.

  7. #7
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    why do you guys hate America?

    This is why the tenth Amendment was made.

  8. #8
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Cadsuane View Post
    Actually healthcare is a provincial matter here too. Every province maintains and administers its own program.

    So the Province can opt of the Socialist system you guys have? I don't think so.

  9. #9
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,696
    BG Level
    6

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinox View Post
    So the Province can opt of the Socialist system you guys have? I don't think so.
    They can! Adherence to the Canada Health Act is voluntary and has to be due to the constitutional division of powers (giving the provinces jurisdiction over healthcare didn't seem like such a big deal during confederation I guess). But then the provinces wouldn't get transfer payments so they all sort of do.

    Still, the CHA just says that the coverage given has to cover any "medical necessity" without co-pay. Beyond that the provinces have a bunch of latitude in deciding what to cover, so there are subtle differences between say, OHIP (Ontario) and MCP (Newfoundland).

  10. #10
    Science Fiction Super Fan
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,210
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Cerberus

    haha shitty health care up here in canada

    your brainwashing is showing

  11. #11
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Cadsuane View Post
    They can! Adherence to the Canada Health Act is voluntary and has to be due to the constitutional division of powers (giving the provinces jurisdiction over healthcare didn't seem like such a big deal during confederation I guess). But then the provinces wouldn't get transfer payments so they all sort of do.

    Still, the CHA just says that the coverage given has to cover any "medical necessity" without co-pay. Beyond that the provinces have a bunch of latitude in deciding what to cover, so there are subtle differences between say, OHIP (Ontario) and MCP (Newfoundland).
    So your saying is they are essentially held hostage by the withholding of funds?

    didn't know Canada was the Cuba to the north.

  12. #12
    Pandemonium
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,859
    BG Level
    8
    WoW Realm
    Cho'gall

    Why would teabaggers march against this, they're all for carrying guns, government can't tell me what to do!

    C- trolling

  13. #13
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,696
    BG Level
    6

    Quote Originally Posted by Takedown3 View Post
    haha shitty health care up here in canada

    your brainwashing is showing
    I didn't say it was good or bad you fucking troglodyte. Throw better bait next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinox View Post
    So your saying is they are essentially held hostage by the withholding of funds?

    didn't know Canada was the Cuba to the north.
    Yeah, well. That and public opinion. And not all transfer payments, just those that pertain to public healthcare equalization.

  14. #14
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephius View Post
    Why would teabaggers march against this, they're all for carrying guns, government can't tell me what to do!

    C- trolling
    States' rights

  15. #15
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Cadsuane View Post
    Yeah, well. That and public opinion. And not all transfer payments, just those that pertain to public healthcare equalization.
    State controlled media must paint rosey pictures then. I don't know who you're trying to convince most people from Canada I've talk to tell me of lines around the block just to see a doctor about a cold.

  16. #16
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,696
    BG Level
    6

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinox View Post
    State controlled media must paint rosey pictures then. I don't know who you're trying to convince most people from Canada I've talk to tell me of lines around the block just to see a doctor about a cold.
    Oh yeah, for sure. The CBC is publically funded too.

  17. #17
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    Btw Ceph You're telling me that Tea baggers would overlook this blatant encroachment of states' rights simply because of their love of guns?

    You're selling those Patriotic Americans short. figures you would try and marginalize them like this. Next you're gonna call them racists.

  18. #18

    ITT: Implying most Teabaggers aren't ignorant hypocrites.


    And dude, you obviously don't pick up any books, this is the Canadian century!

    Edit: alright, well at least you are laying it on thick enough now. Although I don't get why part of your post is serious and the rest is taking stabs at teabaggers. Just saw an opportunity and went for it?

  19. #19
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,077
    BG Level
    10

    Bullshit If Canada was so great Quebec wouldn't actively trying to succeed.

  20. #20
    I'm almost as bad as Mazmaz
    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,958
    BG Level
    10

    Sup.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. And the game with the best storyline goes to....
    By Marcicus in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 2006-10-11, 12:56