mnealtx 0
quade 4
Actually, even the NRA has waffled on certain parts of how it's interpreted.
It's not just me and the awful, "liberal" anti-gun nuts. Like I said, even people that have worked diligently for the NRA have not been 100% confident in their position. (1)
Sure, they'll still spout it so often you'll think it's been decided and theirs is the only way it can be interpreted, but that's simply not the reality of the situation.
It's not just me and the awful, "liberal" anti-gun nuts. Like I said, even people that have worked diligently for the NRA have not been 100% confident in their position. (1)
Sure, they'll still spout it so often you'll think it's been decided and theirs is the only way it can be interpreted, but that's simply not the reality of the situation.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
your citation does not support the argument you're trying to make.
The NRA didn't waiver in what they believe, they were concerned about what the court would do. Case law is determined by the actual circumstances of the case - some are better horses than others. Consider Miller (1939) - if the defendant hadn't died, the outcome could have been quite different as he could have taken the court's invitation to pursue it further. I believe the Heller case is based on restraining orders and spousal fights, which is hardly a safe topic in the justice system.
This is a Supreme Court that in recent years has killed vote counting in Florida (end result would have been the same, but it should have been done) and upheld McCain-Feingold. Criminal procedure rights have also been cut to pieces.
The NRA didn't waiver in what they believe, they were concerned about what the court would do. Case law is determined by the actual circumstances of the case - some are better horses than others. Consider Miller (1939) - if the defendant hadn't died, the outcome could have been quite different as he could have taken the court's invitation to pursue it further. I believe the Heller case is based on restraining orders and spousal fights, which is hardly a safe topic in the justice system.
This is a Supreme Court that in recent years has killed vote counting in Florida (end result would have been the same, but it should have been done) and upheld McCain-Feingold. Criminal procedure rights have also been cut to pieces.
quade 4
Quoteyour citation does not support the argument you're trying to make.
The NRA didn't waiver in what they believe, they were concerned about what the court would do.
Because they were not 100% confident in their position!
If I KNOW that I'm right, I have nothing to fear. Same with NRA lawyers.
While they may not say it in public, there absolutely is a certain faction of NRA lawyers, even knowing the SCOTUS is currently stacked in their favor, that the case may not fly in their favor. Why? The language. That is what the case comes down to; a couple of clauses and a couple of commas. Federalist papers all that other stuff really doesn't matter a whit. The 2nd wasn't just dashed off on the back of a napkin during a lunch break. If the founding fathers wanted to actually put it in the 2nd they had every opportunity to say it expressly and without any dependent clauses whatsoever.
The fact is that -today- it hasn't been decided. If it were as perfectly simple and there was no question whatsoever, it would have never come up in the first place.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteWell, it looks like we have to wait until next Monday at the earliest....
Yes but at least the decision will come.
mnealtx 0
QuoteBecause they were not 100% confident in their position!
I think it is because of recent interpretations of the amendment that they are unsure of their position in regards to this case, not because of the wording of the amendment by the founders. That has been found to support the individual right reading of the amendment.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
1969912 0
QuoteQuoteWell, it looks like we have to wait until next Monday at the earliest....
Yes but at least the decision will come.
Too bad they don't have little "leaks" to the press to give something pertinent to talk about
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
1969912 0
Aaagghh... Gotta wait another week+.
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
quade 4
QuoteAaagghh... Gotta wait another week+.
I'm beginning to wonder if the cheese dicks will some how wiggle out of having to make any decision at all?
I've said all along that no matter how the decision comes down it's going to be "interesting." What I meant by that on a certain level is; "has the potential to cause rioting in the streets."
So, now, I'm beginning to wonder about it.
Would it be possible for them to just pocket the decision?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
mnealtx 0
QuoteWould it be possible for them to just pocket the decision?
They've already heard the arguments, so I wouldn't think they'd be able to sit on the ruling indefinitely.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
I've said all along that no matter how the decision comes down it's going to be "interesting." What I meant by that on a certain level is; "has the potential to cause rioting in the streets."
no decision will lead to rioting in the streets. If they rule for the 2nd Amendment, the 1000 members of the MMM and Soros don't make up enough people to form a riot, and they're easily quelled by riot sticks. A ruling against the 2nd is basically an affirmation of the status quo - the most likely response is to continue to disregard the more onerous restrictions, and to vote McCain.
Inaction in this case would be a narrowly crafted response that doesn't apply beyond the specifics. But I don't see the opening for them to do that in this case. They can avoid answering the entire question of the 2nd, but they still have to rule on a significant element of it.
JohnRich 4
QuoteToo bad they don't have little "leaks" to the press to give something pertinent to talk about
The anti-gunnies are already back-pedaling and talking about how the Heller decision won't really mean anything, and how they have other ways to ban those evil guns anyway. So they seem to think that they're going to lose, and are already doing damage control. They might know something from the inside that we don't.
Quote: "We’re expecting D.C. to lose the case..."
"http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/category/parker-v-district-of-columbia/"
They're not going to crawl back into their holes and disappear - we'll still have to fight them to protect our rights. The only thing that will change is the arguments.
from our Brady friends:
"“Universal background checks don’t affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home,"
*super dangerous* - it's sounds like he's channelling Reese Whitherspoon now, not a real lawyer.
But if their 'victory in defeat' means going back to their position of 15 years ago, works well for me. But I don't think the current Congress would give Obama a new version of the AWB. At least the battle line would be far back again.
"“Universal background checks don’t affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home,"
*super dangerous* - it's sounds like he's channelling Reese Whitherspoon now, not a real lawyer.
But if their 'victory in defeat' means going back to their position of 15 years ago, works well for me. But I don't think the current Congress would give Obama a new version of the AWB. At least the battle line would be far back again.
But, since you mention Kennesaw... how about a comparison between Kennesaw and OTHER Atlanta suburbs...as well as Atlanta itself for contrast?
City Pop. Vio. crime rate/100k Murder rate/100k
Atlanta 485804 7548 1553.71 110 22.64
Carrolton 22538 167 740.97 4 17.75
College Park 20829 327 1569.93 3 14.40
Kennesaw 28189 36 127.71 1 3.55
Lawrenceville 29305 120 409.49 2 6.82
Marietta 63228 400 632.63 1 1.58
Newnan 25446 174 683.80 0 0.00
Norcross 10205 159 1558.06 0 0.00
Riverdale 15972 115 720.01 0 0.00
Roswell 88679 178 200.72 0 0.00
Smyrna 49173 223 453.50 1 2.03
Stone Mountain 7307 17 232.65 0 0.00
Looks like Kennesaw has a MUCH lower violent crime rate than the other suburbs, with a murder rate that is comparable to the other suburbs.
I guess all the guns that KILL people must get on the bus and travel to Atlanta, eh professor?
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites