Every day's a banquet of winning for my side. And it's just going to get better.
How can you say this!!??! sputters the Gunloon Lemmings.
Easy.
If you've ever trained as a lifeguard, you'll have learned that some drowning people are so panicked and distraught, they actually fight attempts at a rescue. Paramedics know that some patients will often fight attempts at medical assistance because they're panicked and confused.
Witness today's GOP and their NRA pals. They hate Obama because he's
But noooooo. Michelle Bachmann, who is batshit crazy, is leading GOP hopefuls. Imagine: someone whose husband can pray away the gay, who thinks not raising the debt ceiling is no big deal, and thinks slavery was a good thing for blacks.
But she is a gunloon. so she might win Tennessee or some other state where Jon Sullivan is eligible to vote.
Meanwhile DC v. Palmer moves forward. This is a federal case to establish 'carry' as a core portion of the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteSeems the Supreme Court got tired of an anti-judge sitting on a case without releasing a decision.
This morning the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court reassigned Palmer v. DC to Senior Judge Frederick Scullin who is sitting in DC by designation from the 2nd Circuit District Court in New York. The next step is a chambers hearing July 22. Also today, Palmer et. al. filed a notice of supplemental authority based on Ezell.
You ought to read Ezell and consider just how bad this is going to be for YOUR side now that its being pushed forward. Not only does this signal other lower courts to not stall on 2A cases, but this a strong indication of how things are going to be decided once they reach SCOTUS.
Jade has two “sides”; Democrats and Gun Control. Ironically, the more the Democrats dump the albatross of gun control, the more they win. He meant the Democrats are winning against the Republicans, not that gun control is winning against gun rights. That is a different game. “There is no gun control in this country”, so you can’t be winning with a goose egg on the scoreboard.
ReplyDeleteTS, TS, TS...
ReplyDeleteThe NRA spent over $40M of your money to defeat Obama in 2008.
That didn't turn out well for your side.
OTOH, in 2012 all the GOP candidates (well, depending what side of the bed Willard Romney woke up on today) are very much pro-gunloon.
Each one of them has about as much chance of beating Obama in '12 as Paul Helmke being named head of the NRA.
"This is a federal case to establish 'carry' as a core portion of the 2nd Amendment."
ReplyDeleteOMG, the bastardization of the 2A continues.
Let's see now, if we have a right to life, then we have a right to self-defense, and if we have a right to self-defense then we automatically have a right to own guns, and if we have that right, it follows we must have the god-given, basic-fundamental-human right to carry them wherever we want.
Yeeehaw, that's what I call freedom.
Meanwhile DC v. Palmer moves forward. This is a federal case to establish 'carry' as a core portion of the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this an even more egregious example of the Supreme Court acting ultra vires by judicially amending the Second Amendment? Since the Supreme Court (as did Judge Silberman) acted ultra vires by failing to follow the standard set by US v. Miller and US v. Sandidge, isn't this entire case line illegal?
Per Justice William O. Douglas who was on the Supreme Court at the time of Miller:
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.
Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972)
I trust Douglas far more than I trust these "modern scholars" for the meaning of Miller.
OMG, the bastardization of the 2A continues.
ReplyDeleteYou don't get the 'keep' without the 'bear.'
Jade: “The NRA spent over $40M of your money to defeat Obama in 2008. That didn't turn out well for your side.”
ReplyDeleteMy side? I voted for him. Why would I do such a thing? Because we are winning the gun rights battle, so I can vote for him for other reasons. Again, you are just arguing that the Democrats are winning against the Republicans because they have a rag tag group of candidates the best of which have no chance of winning the nomination. And since your pet issue is about 63rd on Obama’s priority list, and by your own admission there is “no gun control in this country” then clearly the “winning” can not possibly mean the gun control movement.
Personally I think gun control is winning in a few states, but losing the country overall.
TS: You sound like a gun grabber.
ReplyDeleteWhile gun control may or may not be high on Obama's priority list--it is a position we both know he favors.
OTOH, you have all the GOP candidates virtually claiming guns should be handed out on demand--and each one of 'em will get demolished by Obama.
Jade: “While gun control may or may not be high on Obama's priority list--it is a position we both know he favors.”
ReplyDeleteSo why can’t he get what he wants?
Answer me how “we have no gun control in this country” but you are winning. Answer me that.
Again, TS--if everyone in this country is so pro-gunloon--why aren't GOP candidates doing better? After all, it's not as if the economy is going great.
ReplyDeleteI realize it's considered unfair in gunloon debates to use facts but there it is.
Another fact--not only won't the GOP candidates stand a chance against Obama but they're also batshit crazy. When a movement is on its last legs, their leaders tend not to be responsible or rational--hence, you guys have Bachmann, Cain, maybe Perry.
Jade: “I realize it's considered unfair in gunloon debates to use facts but there it is.”
ReplyDeleteI realize it is considered unfair for me to use your own words against you, but answer me how “we have no gun control in this country” but you are winning.
Since the Supreme Court (as did Judge Silberman) acted ultra vires by failing to follow the standard set by US v. Miller and US v. Sandidge, isn't this entire case line illegal?
ReplyDeleteWhether you and your small trio consider following Miller or not is somewhat irrelevant at this point. The courts have already shifted and are now more inclined to look at level of scrutiny and application with regards to the 2A being a fundamental incorporated right. Heller and McDonald are dicta. As far as precedent is concerned, its a done deal.
You ought to move on.
Besides, its a bit of an over reaction at his point to be concerned. Judge Roberts realized that a lower court anti-judge was sitting needlessly on a case without releasing a decision.
In other words, justice delayed, is justice denied. And so what if the case has now been assigned to an Ex-Vietnam combat veteran who now sits as judge for this case? So what if SCOTUS wants the lower court judge to look closely at Ezell for direction?
Can you read tea leaves because its not looking good for your side.
Lets be clear. It makes no difference which way this judge decides as its going to SCOTUS and will effect the whole country withing the next 2 years(the benefit of a DC case). Only the speed by which this judge releases his decision is important. And the lower courts have now gotten the hint.
Anonymous said, "You don't get the 'keep' without the 'bear.'"
ReplyDeleteHow about this, you don't get to keep or bear arms without being part of "a well-regulated militia," as it was understood in 1790?
How about this, you don't get to keep or bear arms without being part of "a well-regulated militia," as it was understood in 1790?
ReplyDeleteAccording to SCOTUS, 'a well-regulated militia,' is only one clause. The second portion, 'the right of the people' is independent. One isn't dependent on the other.
Hence why Miller (which regulated militias) is not contradictory to Heller which addresses 'the right of the people.'
Think of it in the same way as freedom of religion is separate from freedom of assembly, or freedom of speech. These are separate individual freedoms and not dependent on each other.
From other entries, I know the trio here can't accept that explanation; perhaps had semi-colons existed at the time you would accept that each clause is a separate freedom protected.