The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Except the same justices didn't vote with the majority.

That isn't necessary with one true pro-liberty guy as the swing. The conservatives can be wrong on their issues and the liberals can be wrong on theirs, but we can get good outcomes with one guy voting for freedom every time. It isn't likely to continue but it is possible.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by glatt

Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.

There was absolutely NOTHING activist about this decision. The mention of a militia was to list one of the many reasons that the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

The term "the people" in every other part of the Constitution refers to individuals. The activists were the ones who were trying to twist the 2nd amendment to change "the right of the people" into "the right of those belonging to militias".

A right is something we're born with. It is something we don't need permission to do. We have an individual RIGHT to keep and bear any weapons we can obtain honestly. We are born with that right. No other person, group of people, or government has any legitimate authority to place limits on that right, or to force us to jump through hoops in order to exercise it.

None of those who voted with the minority on this decision or with the majority on the Kelo decision belongs on the Supreme Court. They are a disgrace to the court, and to America. They should be shot as traitors.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama does win and they have to be consistent and vote in favor of giving more power to a liberal adminstration instead of the current one. Will Alito and Roberts be willing to extend the same authority to Obama as they did to GWB?

Specifically what power/authority did Alito and Roberts give to GWB?

[Flint]

The power for you to shut up.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

The power for you to shut up.

It'll never happen in your lifetime. Get over yourself.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Oh purleeease.

After a moment's thought, I must reply No. I have studied the matter, and I know more about it than you do. No shame in that, is there? Do keep in mind, Dana, that your ignorance and your disbelief do absolutely nothing whatsoever to reduce my knowledge -- and have done even less to halt a genocide. I think all in all, you'd prefer genocides stop, do you not? Well, this is the only known way how -- armed people don't suffer genocides. Don't make illegitimate statements in the presence of the more knowledgeable, okay? They'll gnaw your legs off all over the Internet.

And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.

In my experience of the issue, spanning a couple decades now, there is no such thing as "duly afraid." There are those who volubly pretend such exists, but their protestations don't stand examination. The very potential for arms to cause the harm is the very potential to prevent it. It's not merely a wash, but other effects of arms ownership on the body politic mean that an armed people is a civilized people. Especially so if you accept that the state crime of genocide (for it's very hard to get it done without the support of a state's power) is the very acme of uncivilized behavior.

[DanaC]

but other effects of arms ownership on the body politic mean that an armed people is a civilized people.

Then my people must be a deeply uncivilised one.

I have studied the matter, and I know more about it than you do. No shame in that, is there? Do keep in mind, Dana, that your ignorance and your disbelief do absolutely nothing whatsoever to reduce my knowledge -- and have done even less to halt a genocide.

I see no shame in knowing less than another about a subject. I would, however, contend that you are pulling your knowledge out of your backside and as such I don't consider your opinion to be more valid or worthwhile than mine.

How, precisely, have you halted a genocide? Since your contention appears to be that my ignorance has prevented me doing the same.

Don't make illegitimate statements in the presence of the more knowledgeable, okay? They'll gnaw your legs off all over the Internet.

I know you are, but what am I?

[Troubleshooter]

Guns aren't a broad solution.

Guns simply give you two additional options.

When all of the non-violent options are used up what do you do?

The unarmed either become armed or they become statistics.

The armed have the additional choices of bargaining or fighting.

The unarmed have no say in the matter.

[Radar]

I think your question is fair Dana, but you should keep in mind it is impossible to prove that you helped avert something that never happened. One can not prove a negative.

It's like the morons who claim we've had major terrorist attack on U.S. soil due to the insane policies of George W. Bush. One can not prove such a statement and even making such a claim is logically retarded.

It is like me saying that the paint on my house repels Bigfoot and saying, "Well you don't see Bigfoot at my house do you?" as a means of proof.

UG obviously can't prove that he has helped avert genocide. He can only state that he has opposed gun control laws which have been used in the past to disarm people so they could carry out genocide. On the other hand, one could easily contend that UG and Merc have both supported a very real torture and genocide in Iraq at the hands of Americans. I'd say a million dead Iraqi people who never posed any harm to America and who died defending their own country from a hostile rogue nation who invaded (The USA), or who were imprisoned and tortured without charges or valid cause, or whose families were broken up when soldiers kicked down their door, and took their only means of defending themselves, and allowed a stream of murderers to come in to Iraq.

Each and every single death on both sides of the Iraq conflict are the fault of the Bush administration and none of them were the result of defending America.


So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq. He'll most likely use the language that all tyrants have used when carrying out such atrocities like "liberating the people" or "killing a horrible dictator". But those are just empty words.

The invasion of Iraq was not done to "liberate" the Iraqi people or to kill a dictator who murdered his own people and rule the others with an iron fist. Even if it was to do these things, it still would not further libertarianism or freedom. Invading Iraq is nothing other than murdering those who were already victims of Saddam.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Guns aren't a broad solution.

Guns simply give you two additional options.

When all of the non-violent options are used up what do you do?

The unarmed either become armed or they become statistics.

The armed have the additional choices of bargaining or fighting.

The unarmed have no say in the matter.

When all of the non-violent options to do what are used up? To control another nation? To stop another nation from building weapons even though they are sovereign and don't require our permission to do it?

Guns are merely a way of using force. No force is justified unless it is defensive force, meaning you only use force against those who have attacked you and never using it against anyone else.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'd say a million dead Iraqi people

Speaking of knowledge pulled out of one's backside. More reliable sources say 93,067

So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq.

If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.

[Radar]

More reliable sources according to whom? To you?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...25-401,00.html

THIS is the lancet study.

The Lancet study is the only existing study that uses the method accepted all over the world for estimating deaths due to large-scale violent conflict: a cluster survey.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=78


The numbers used to determine that more than a million Iraqi deaths can be attributed to the unconstitutional 2003 invasion takes the lancet study and extrapolates from there. There is no doubt that when you include the unconstitutional 1991 invasion of Iraq, the 12 subsequent years of bombing Iraq daily and keeping them from life saving medicines, the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq in 2003, and those murdered by the flood of terrorists America brought into Iraq, those who were imprisoned and tortured (sometimes to death), etc. that well over a million Iraqi people are dead due to America's actions. More than double that amount of become refugees from their own country.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.

You mean the AKs that were quickly taken when Americans kicked down Iraqi doors and ransacked their houses to take their only means of defending themselves from a hostile rogue nation invading their country (USA)? Those AKs?

[Radar]

For the record, the site you linked to only counts CIVILIAN deaths and then only the reported ones.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Radar

When all of the non-violent options to do what are used up? To control another nation? To stop another nation from building weapons even though they are sovereign and don't require our permission to do it?

Guns are merely a way of using force. No force is justified unless it is defensive force, meaning you only use force against those who have attacked you and never using it against anyone else.

Slow your roll girlfriend.

I was speaking specifically in reference to citizens being able to protect themselves whether it's from other citizens or a tyrannical government.

[Radar]

I'm marking today in my calendar. It took me nearly 40 years to be called "girlfriend".

I apologize if I seemed rude or like I was attacking. I'm always ready to jump on those who would use force against others for political gain or social engineering.